Live data from Hacker News

Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

storage.courtlistener.com

11–20 of 270 posts

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#11

Google should be broken up into 5 parts: Search/Adwords/Mail/Drive, Android, Chrome, Maps & GCP.

That would mean 5 monopolies. I would split them in 5 parts, each owning 20% of all current businesses.

So you are saying that no one entity could own more than 20% of alphabet? And it would retain all of its monopoly power?

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#12

249. The speed benefits Google marketed were also at least partly a result of Google’s throttling. Google throttles the load time of non-AMP ads by giving them artificial one-second delays in order to give Google AMP a “nice comparative boost.” Throttling non-AMP ads slows down header bidding, which Google then uses to denigrate header bidding for being too slow. “Header Bidding can often increase latency of web page…

Wow, I feel naive now for defending AMP providing better user experience. As it turns out, Google is evil and I simply did not want to believe it.

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#13

Google should be broken up into 5 parts: Search/Adwords/Mail/Drive, Android, Chrome, Maps & GCP.

That would mean 5 monopolies. I would split them in 5 parts, each owning 20% of all current businesses.

There's a very clear conflict of interest between ads and everything else google does, and the documents alledge some abuses of the monopoly position around that conflict. So any kind of antitrust breakup is very likely to start there. Personally, I think it would be quite interesting to split ads from everything else and then split ads itself into a few competing entities.

I'm not sure you get a benefit to the consumer from having multiple entities who can all still do search and manipulate ads, keyword sales and search rankings for example.

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#14

249. The speed benefits Google marketed were also at least partly a result of Google’s throttling. Google throttles the load time of non-AMP ads by giving them artificial one-second delays in order to give Google AMP a “nice comparative boost.” Throttling non-AMP ads slows down header bidding, which Google then uses to denigrate header bidding for being too slow. “Header Bidding can often increase latency of web page…

They're also pushing for the adoption of Signed HTTP Exchanges, with several Google employees defending the spec here on HN, comparing it to be merely like HTTPS in terms of publishers giving up control over their content.

It's clear that Chrome must be separated from Google and Alphabet, nothing else will stop them from trying to colonize the web.

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#15
This tweet highlights Project NERA, which seems consistent with their actions to date.

> Google had a plan called "Project NERA" to turn the web into a walled garden they called "Not Owned But Operated". A core component of this was the forced logins to the chrome browser you've probably experienced (surprise!) [1]

This is classic 90s Microsoft playbook. Detangling the web from Google is getting harder and harder over time.

1: https://mobile.twitter.com/fasterthanlime/status/14520539415...

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#16

Google should be broken up into 5 parts: Search/Adwords/Mail/Drive, Android, Chrome, Maps & GCP.

Ads would need to be split up further, as well. It's ridiculous that Google controls the marketplace, buying of ads on that marketplace, and selling ad placements.

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#17
post #12

249. The speed benefits Google marketed were also at least partly a result of Google’s throttling. Google throttles the load time of non-AMP ads by giving them artificial one-second delays in order to give Google AMP a “nice comparative boost.” Throttling non-AMP ads slows down header bidding, which Google then uses to denigrate header bidding for being too slow. “Header Bidding can often increase latency of web page…

Wow, I feel naive now for defending AMP providing better user experience. As it turns out, Google is evil and I simply did not want to believe it.

There were people defending AMP? Everything I've heard about it was backlash

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#18
Given that Google is critical for US intelligence supremacy and technological dominance, I am curious what the US chooses to do with it.

Surely from a free market perspective and for long term growth, it needs to be broken into pieces in such a manner that would destroy its monopoly power.

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#20
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, I feel naive now for defending AMP providing better user experience. As it turns out, Google is evil and I simply did not want to believe it.

There were people defending AMP? Everything I've heard about it was backlash

AMP does have better experience from the users perspective. The backlash is from the techies only.

I assumed that the non-amp websites were slower due to the JS bloat, I still despise what the Web pages has become, however it turns out Google wasn't a honest broker here and instead of providing a tool that helps them and the users, they provided a tool that helps them and harms the users and bullies the website owners. That's evil and drains the last bits of trust I had left for Google.

Post reply on HN