United States vs. Google • Hacker News Board

Re: United States vs. Google

#271

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Oct 21, 2020, 9:10 PM UTC

wwwdonohue wrote: post #75

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…

I sort of agree, but part of me also thinks that if a company builds the world's best mobile OS and search engine and ad platform and video streaming service and internet browser and mapping service... well, good for them! They built the best products and it seems like it would ultimately be anti-consumer to do anything about it. It's different if a company like Google establishes its dominance via one great product…

[deleted]

Re: United States vs. Google

#272

Post by Razengan » Wed, Oct 21, 2020, 9:14 PM UTC

wwwdonohue wrote: post #75

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…

I sort of agree, but part of me also thinks that if a company builds the world's best mobile OS and search engine and ad platform and video streaming service and internet browser and mapping service... well, good for them! They built the best products and it seems like it would ultimately be anti-consumer to do anything about it. It's different if a company like Google establishes its dominance via one great product…

> They built the best products and it seems like it would ultimately be anti-consumer to do anything about it.

> A company leveraging its dominance in one business to exert control over others =/= a company having success because it built the best products.

This comment reads like it was paid for by Google, because most of that is nowhere near the truth, neither the building part nor being the best part.

And boy the bias on HN is palpable when comments like this were being insta-buried when the same things were being said in favor of Apple during the Epic blitzkrieg.

Re: United States vs. Google

#273

Post by LeifCarrotson » Wed, Oct 21, 2020, 9:15 PM UTC

Siira wrote: post #241

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The power that Google used to build those other lines of business was not artificial, but it was very effective. The existence of that power is anti-consumer because no one else can afford to build anything better, because Google makes more money than your hypothetical new world's best product ever by charging absolutely nothing for their competing product. Step 1, in 1997, was to build the world's best search engine…

> charging absolutely nothing for their competing product. Most people prefer this. What you're suggesting is to subsidize the rich by removing free products thus making everyone share the costs for the premium services. I.e., this is not a local maximum preventing the global utopia of premium services for the rich. The current design serves the world better than that exclusionary, elitist dream. (Though the market i…

In no way am I suggesting that we "subsidize the rich". I'm suggesting that we do the opposite, that we restrict and regulate the richest monopolies (Google) to preserve freedoms for the poor.

We're very much at risk of being a world in which people either have to be rich or not participate in society to avoid privacy invasion by companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, and Microsoft. If you're poor, you can have a free email address, but that comes at a cost of allowing Google to read your email (and pass it to their ad customers) so they can serve you ads. The answer to this hegemony is not "Well, Google provides free email addresses, better let them keep doing what they're doing so we don't discriminate against the poor", it's to regulate them so they're not allowed to read your emails, or otherwise provide some alternative service that can provide email addresses for cost plus a small profit margin.

And yes, I know that in this particular example there are other free or inexpensive email providers, but they're not world-dominating products; the market is distorted because the few willing to pay are signalling something pretty strong by rejecting the free, high-quality option offered by Google.

Re: United States vs. Google

#274

Post by remram » Wed, Oct 21, 2020, 9:16 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #148

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democracy only works well with an informed and educated populace and we have been defunding education for a decade. Add in the power of lobbyists and the newfound power of tech giants to inflict misery on humanity and you get the current “corporate rule” we are experiencing. https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/a-punishi...

Almost nobody who went through the educational system in the last decade is even voting. People who are voting today were educated during a period of massively growing education funding: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/mar/02/dave-brat/...

In most states, your vote literally does not count.

(mine doesn't for a different reason since I'm a foreign citizen)

Re: United States vs. Google

#275

Post by Razengan » Wed, Oct 21, 2020, 9:17 PM UTC

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.

> you as an individual have a choice if you want to use the services they provide.

How would the common folk avoid Analytics or Ads?

Google benefits from me even when I visit completely unrelated websites.

Re: United States vs. Google

#276

Post by nassims » Wed, Oct 21, 2020, 9:24 PM UTC

bogwog wrote: post #200

VikingCoder wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) best search engine 2) top online ad platform 3) top mobile OS 4) top video streaming service 5) top internet browser 6) top mapping/navigation service Okay, you listed 6. What should the law say is the new limit for how many they should be able to have?

Think about it like this: what are the chances any other competitor will be able to challenge those products and succeed? If some other innovative company “started in a garage” or whatever does challenge one of those, Google has the power to kill it before it becomes a threat, cripple it while they copy the technology or poach the development team, acquire the company with a truckload of money, etc. So in the end, Go…

I think a competitor could rise by doing the same thing tech giants do. Start small in a unrelated niche than with the success in that niche enter other sectors until you can compete with Google.

Re: United States vs. Google

#277

Post by jabbanobodder » Wed, Oct 21, 2020, 9:33 PM UTC

Razengan wrote: post #275

jabbanobodder wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> you as an individual have a choice if you want to use the services they provide. How would the common folk avoid Analytics or Ads? Google benefits from me even when I visit completely unrelated websites.

Use duckduckgo

Re: United States vs. Google

#278

Post by 11thEarlOfMar » Wed, Oct 21, 2020, 9:34 PM UTC

olladecarne wrote: post #255

11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scope and scale don't transition into being a problem until they begin to behave with a political (or religious, or...) bias and work to influence their customers in ways outside of providing value. Your phone company, auto manufacturer or favorite restaurant chain should want to provide value regardless of their customers' politics. It's definitely crossing a line for them to covertly influence the political leaning…

Any decision they make can be classified as "influencing political leanings". If they just serve you content that you agree with, that's influencing your political leaning by reinforcing your beliefs (IMO this is what Youtube already does). If they serve you any other content, unless it's random and therefore useless, then anyone can claim they are influencing political leanings. In fact, any company whose business m…

I agree, which is why I specifically said 'covertly'. Netflix and Spotify suggest movies and music they think you'll like, and they tell you they are doing so. Their recommendation engines add value.

When I search Google, there is no disclaimer that they are slanting the results to match their political leanings in order to influence me away from mine.

Re: United States vs. Google

#279

Post by eloisant » Wed, Oct 21, 2020, 9:34 PM UTC

pier25 wrote: post #166

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…

So what's the solution? Impose laws that don't allow Google to share information between their services/products?

Break out Google into independent companies.

The antitrust law already exist.

Re: United States vs. Google

#280

Post by jabbanobodder » Wed, Oct 21, 2020, 9:34 PM UTC

ColoradoDev wrote: post #94

jabbanobodder wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 don't buy this argument. You, as someone up-to-date on technology, have a choice. But if you think that the average middle-to-later aged individual has the knowledge to make this choice and avoid their influence, than I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

But why is that Google fault? Short answer, it's not.