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

Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

storage.courtlistener.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 270 posts

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#61

Post by Xelbair »

paulluuk wrote: post #27
throwaway4good wrote: post #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.

But would it still be a "free market" if governments just go around splitting up companies once they get (too) big? Not defending the idea of a free market here, I'm leaning pretty far past socialist myself, but I know that the US in general cares deeply about free market philosophy.

Monopoly, while the end goal of any actor under capitalistic system, is the antithesis to capitalism itself. Capitalism exists to force competition.

So yes, splitting a monopoly should be part of 'free market', as having monopolies basically destroys it.

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#63

Post by jclulow »

lordofgibbons wrote: post #62

I hope we can keep politics out of this thread, but I couldn't help but notice all of the plaintiff states are dominantly Republican states. Any ideas why that would be and why the "blue" states aren't present?

I assume it's because Republicans are, on average, more butthurt about technology companies of late because of the bare minimum level of fact checking some of the social platforms have engaged in during the most recent election cycle. Regardless, Google should be nailed against the wall, and though there is little doubt in my mind they will in absolutely no way be appropriately punished for their poor behaviour, it's difficult to complain about people taking shots at them.

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#64

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

robin_reala wrote: post #7

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…

In case anyone reading is unaware Google already inserts artificial delay into page loading times, to allow for header bidding. Online advertising proponents would argue this delay is below human perception. But the perceptibility of the wait should be for users, not Google, to decide; it is artifical and undisclosed delay, for the benefit of advertising. If users were told about it and could avoid it, no doubt they would. As we can see, artificial delay can be used as an anticompetitive measure.

These tactics, similar to deliberately introduced incompatibilities or performance differences, are old hat. For example, through the 90's, third party software for Windows never ran as smoothly as software issued by Microsoft. It was not the same "user experience". So long as this sort of conduct remains "legal", these companies interpret that as permission to engage in it.

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#65

Post by [deleted] »

robin_reala wrote: post #7

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…

[deleted]

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#66

Post by willis936 »

jclulow wrote: post #63
lordofgibbons wrote: post #62

I hope we can keep politics out of this thread, but I couldn't help but notice all of the plaintiff states are dominantly Republican states. Any ideas why that would be and why the "blue" states aren't present?

I assume it's because Republicans are, on average, more butthurt about technology companies of late because of the bare minimum level of fact checking some of the social platforms have engaged in during the most recent election cycle. Regardless, Google should be nailed against the wall, and though there is little doubt in my mind they will in absolutely no way be appropriately punished for their poor behaviour, it's…

Could you expound on "bare minimum level of fact checking "? It seems to me that one tribe was proportionately de-platformed for their violations of ToS and is unhappy with not having the power to do something about it.

If the road to hell is paved with good intentions then maybe the road to heaven is paved with bad intentions?

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#67

Post by tomjen3 »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #64
robin_reala wrote: post #7

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…

In case anyone reading is unaware Google already inserts artificial delay into page loading times, to allow for header bidding. Online advertising proponents would argue this delay is below human perception. But the perceptibility of the wait should be for users, not Google, to decide; it is artifical and undisclosed delay, for the benefit of advertising. If users were told about it and could avoid it, no doubt they…

So much software is too slow today. I don't think developers remember that users will not perceive your software as instant if you don't get the result in 100ms.

I cancelled my evernote subscription because it is too slow to start up. If I need to access a note on my phone, I don't want it to take perceived time, because then I have to go through the effort of remembering what I am trying to write.

I have switched to Apple notes, which seem to get this.

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#68

Post by [deleted] »

robin_reala wrote: post #7

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…

[deleted]

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#69

Post by jclulow »

willis936 wrote: post #66
jclulow wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume it's because Republicans are, on average, more butthurt about technology companies of late because of the bare minimum level of fact checking some of the social platforms have engaged in during the most recent election cycle. Regardless, Google should be nailed against the wall, and though there is little doubt in my mind they will in absolutely no way be appropriately punished for their poor behaviour, it's…

Could you expound on "bare minimum level of fact checking "? It seems to me that one tribe was proportionately de-platformed for their violations of ToS and is unhappy with not having the power to do something about it. If the road to hell is paved with good intentions then maybe the road to heaven is paved with bad intentions?

Don't be taken in by the idea that balance for the sake of balance is some kind of absolute good. If I say that the earth is flat, and you say that the earth is round, the newspaper headline probably shouldn't be that nobody can agree on what shape the earth is.

One tribe, as it happens, says rather a lot more daft and dangerous things than the other. It's not possible to _hope and good cheer_ someone into doing something, but it is possible to _terrify_ them with angry rhetoric and falsehoods. I think people who are making a bunch of shit up should probably not be given a megaphone, whether they're speaking for my tribe or yours.

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#70

Post by tomjen3 »

lordofgibbons wrote: post #62

I hope we can keep politics out of this thread, but I couldn't help but notice all of the plaintiff states are dominantly Republican states. Any ideas why that would be and why the "blue" states aren't present?

There is a bias against technology in the red tribe, as they generally lean left (or are perceived to do so).

Not that it matters, we need a new generation of anti-trust over this. Google must be prohibited from engaging in selling or buying ads.

Post reply on HN