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

United States vs. Google

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 353 posts

Re: United States vs. Google

#101

Post by [deleted] »

jabbanobodder wrote: post #82
dsabanin wrote: post #47

I think Google is the best search engine. I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with them being the best search engine, top online ad platform and a developer of the top mobile OS, top video streaming service, top internet browser, top mapping/navigation service, among other things, at the SAME time. Their assets give them undue and unsupervised influence over a very big chunk of what's happening onli…

But you're not cornered in. You might think they have a large influence over what is happening online (and they do), but you as an individual have a choice if you want to use the services they provide. Also this large influence is additionally strengthened by the fact that no other company can offer services (above mentioned) that match the quality of the product Google is giving.

[deleted]

Re: United States vs. Google

#102

Post by wonder_er »

At least Google's monopoly isn't based on coercion and threats of violence.

I with the US Government didn't have a monopoly on coercion and threats of violence.

It's hard for me to give a sh*t about the Department of Justice's take on _anything_ when they still prosecute drug possession.

Repeat after me:

- Google cannot legally kill people or put them in boxes.

- The DoJ and it's subsidiaries kills people and puts them in boxes, "legally".

Google has a 'natural monopoly' on search and tech-related things, by virtue of better services and spending money. Google doesn't have a _legal_ monopoly on anything.

Department of Justice has a _legal_ monopoly on everything it cares to monopolize, but is actually pretty bad at its job.

It's likely this entire issue is politically motivated to distract/contribute to political goals for the upcoming US election.

As far as models for governence and large-group coordination, I'd trust Google way more than I'd trust the US Government.

So why does everyone think the government will save us from Google?

The best thing the DoJ could do would be disband itself and go permanently out of business.

For example, another top HN thread right now talks about how "behavioral nudges" caused the NYPD to arrest 30,000 LESS people than they otherwise would:

> Each year, millions of Americans fail to appear in court for low-level offenses, and warrants are then issued for their arrest. In two field studies in New York City, we make critical information salient by redesigning the summons form and providing text message reminders. These interventions reduce failures to appear by 13-21% and lead to 30,000 fewer arrest warrants over a 3-year period.

Holy shit! Sending TEXTS causes the police to issue 30,000 less arrests?

From the article:

> Over 10 million people are arrested each year in the United States, and millions more are issued summonses that draw them into the criminal justice system and require court appearances.

Let's move that from passive to active tense:

Law enforcement agencies arrest 10 million people every year in the United States.

Has Google arrested even 1% of that number? Why or why not?

Re: United States vs. Google

#103

Post by munk-a »

jabbanobodder wrote: post #82
dsabanin wrote: post #47

I think Google is the best search engine. I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with them being the best search engine, top online ad platform and a developer of the top mobile OS, top video streaming service, top internet browser, top mapping/navigation service, among other things, at the SAME time. Their assets give them undue and unsupervised influence over a very big chunk of what's happening onli…

But you're not cornered in. You might think they have a large influence over what is happening online (and they do), but you as an individual have a choice if you want to use the services they provide. Also this large influence is additionally strengthened by the fact that no other company can offer services (above mentioned) that match the quality of the product Google is giving.

I can't speak to all of the points but when it comes to video hosting - no you don't. Content creators can't move off of youtube since it's more of a discovery service than a hosting service and it has locked viewers into its platform - it doesn't offer any way for dailymotion, vimeo, nebula, acorn, amazon, netflix, twitch or dlive to promote videos on their home page and due to their enormous market share content creators can't survive on any of the other platforms.

And, again with respect to video hosting there are plenty of very valid competitors technologically - with respect to search if you secretly rebranded google to bing I doubt anyone except the most techie would notice a difference - they win in search because everyone "googles it" - they used to win because alta vista, ask jeeves, lycos and yahoo were all trash, but now there is legitimate competition.

Re: United States vs. Google

#104

Post by edoceo »

speeder wrote: post #32
crazygringo wrote: post #6

Most interesting part IMO is at the end (emphasis mine): > That, though, is why it is a mistake to read the report as some sort of technocratic document... it is exceptionally difficult to make the case that any of these companies are causing consumer harm, which is the de facto standard for antitrust in the United States. Indeed, what makes Google’s contention that “The competition is only a click away” so infuriati…

I am a Google costumer, as in, I pay Google to show my ads in search. To me a literal monopoly is obvious, no other competitor comes even close to Google in performance of search ads, but Google keep increasing in hostility too, they do everything they figure out they can get away with, like blatantly allowing click fraud, making fighting fraud harder, allowing people to use it's tools for extortion via fraud, and so…

And google blocks my cannabis related business from advertising. But allows my direct competitors to advertise. Including the word Cannabis in the ad!

Why is google allowing one cannabis play but not the other?

I'm the ad consumer being harmed. My prospects are possibly harmed because my product is hidden.

Re: United States vs. Google

#105

Post by singhrac »

crazygringo wrote: post #6

Most interesting part IMO is at the end (emphasis mine): > That, though, is why it is a mistake to read the report as some sort of technocratic document... it is exceptionally difficult to make the case that any of these companies are causing consumer harm, which is the de facto standard for antitrust in the United States. Indeed, what makes Google’s contention that “The competition is only a click away” so infuriati…

This is also a good point to make: the popular interpretation of antitrust laws (e.g. current reading of Sherman Antitrust Act (1890) and Anti-Merger Act (1950)) is really rooted in a charge against judicial activism from Aaron Director and Robert Bork's idea of "consumer welfare" (which dates from 1964!). That goal is not enshrined in any particular economic gospel, as far as I can tell. So it's worth noting that legal standards change!

In particular, courts disagree! See the Qualcomm verdict: https://pacer-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/3/19-16122/00913201...

There are plenty of reasons to break a monopoly besides just wanting to see "big guys get knocked down".

Re: United States vs. Google

#106

Post by [deleted] »

wonder_er wrote: post #102

At least Google's monopoly isn't based on coercion and threats of violence. I with the US Government didn't have a monopoly on coercion and threats of violence. It's hard for me to give a sh*t about the Department of Justice's take on _anything_ when they still prosecute drug possession. Repeat after me: - Google cannot legally kill people or put them in boxes. - The DoJ and it's subsidiaries kills people and puts th…

[deleted]

Re: United States vs. Google

#107

Post by AnthonyMouse »

aikinai wrote: post #86
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft was the subject of an antitrust proceeding, and is currently the largest US company by market capitalization. Kodak (film photography) and Sears (mail order catalogs) failed because the markets they had dominated effectively ceased to exist, not because anybody unseated them in those markets.

That’s exactly why those examples are relevant. There’s not a single, static market for browser-accessible website search engines that Google is bound to dominate indefinitely. Google’s been very clever to survive and thrive up until now, but has had to navigate a number of life-threatening hurdles to do so. Had either Chrome or Android failed, neither of which were inevitable, Google would already be on the way out.…

But that's not really what it's about.

The problem isn't that they came to dominate search, it's about what they do now that they have. They leverage it into control over browsers, video hosting, mobile operating systems. Which makes the monopoly stickier, and creates more of them which reinforce each other, because Google is the default search engine on Android and Chrome is the default browser on Android and Google is the default search engine on Chrome and Chrome is the browser promoted on Google.

And here's a fun one for them: Android has an effective monopoly on mobile phone operating systems from the customer of the OS itself (i.e. the device OEM), because Apple won't sell them iOS licenses. So what's the implication of that when they leverage it into the dominance of Google Play for Android apps, or Chrome?

Re: United States vs. Google

#108

Post by Judgmentality »

wonder_er wrote: post #102

At least Google's monopoly isn't based on coercion and threats of violence. I with the US Government didn't have a monopoly on coercion and threats of violence. It's hard for me to give a sh*t about the Department of Justice's take on _anything_ when they still prosecute drug possession. Repeat after me: - Google cannot legally kill people or put them in boxes. - The DoJ and it's subsidiaries kills people and puts th…

This is a red herring fallacy.

The government can be more evil than Google and Google can still be evil. Does that mean we should not care that Google is evil?

The government is the only tool we have to fight Google. And while there are lots of problems with our government, we still have the ability to enact change by voting. You can't really do that with Google, even as a shareholder. The founders have supervoting rights, so even if every investor voted against them they don't have to listen.

Re: United States vs. Google

#109

Post by rland »

> there is a strain of political thought in America, independent of political party (although traditionally associated with Democrats), that is inherently allergic to concentrated power — monopoly in the populist sense, if not the legal one. > Hatred of monopoly is one of the oldest American political habits and like most profound traditions

In what country does the author live?

Americans are so used to concentrated power that they don't bat an eye when they need to pay $100/mo for DSL, $2500 for an ambulance ride, or 1000%+ retail cost on lifesaving medication. Or when their boss (usually acting in the capacity of a multi billion dollar conglomerate) insists they pee into a cup or be constantly tracked and spied on in their workplace. Or when a single company siphons 100+ basis points off their tax payment (Lockheed, military budget). Or when we allow a handful of private companies to put human beings into prison. Or when five companies own nearly all television output. Or when three companies decide arbitrarily whether we can participate in the financial system (credit ratings). Or when 2% of every single transaction goes to one of two companies (Visa or MasterCard). Or when billions of dollars are spent each election cycle by only a handful of players. Or when a handful of individual bankers destroy the entire country's pensions and retirement funds, and are rewarded millions of dollars for it. To Americans, ceding power to a entity controlled by a half dozen stupendously wealthy shareholders is as natural as breathing.

Or, yes, when two companies (for most, just one company) control the flow of every single bit of information we see and hear online (Facebook or Google). Our allergy to concentrated power is the same one that a patient dying of AIDS would have against influenza. Though, let's be fair: HIV is a pre-existing condition.

This lawsuit probably sputter, though, because it doesn't adhere to the working legal definition of monopoly. Which itself suffers from the same blindness to power shared by the super-majority of Americans.

New laws for a new era? Look at who is on the judiciary. Look who is writing laws. Look at -- oh who am I kidding. We have made our choice the past few decades, and we are making our choice now.

Re: United States vs. Google

#110

Post by jeffbee »

oceanplexian wrote: post #41
jeffbee wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are making the same flawed argument that the DOJ complaint is making: that Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, and Amazon, some of the largest companies Earth has ever seen, somehow can't afford to compete in search, which is plainly ridiculous.

The DOJ complaint isn't "You can't have a monopoly". In fact there is nothing illegal about having a monopoly in a product or service under US law. The problem arises when a company leverages a monopoly to suppress competition, implement predatory pricing, or manipulate competition in another market. Using a monopoly in search to compel tying agreements prohibiting browsers or manufacturers from including other searc…

I don't disagree with your comments but I also don't see the connection between them and the specific case the DOJ has actually filed against Google.
Post reply on HN