Live data from Hacker News

Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

storage.courtlistener.com

101–110 of 270 posts

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#101
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

At two large tech companies I worked for, people loved to throw around the term “blink of an eye!” to justify anything around 100ms

“Oh, that’ll load in the blink of an eye! Only as much latency as the blink of an eye!” etc

It was damn frustrating to try and explain to these clowns that things look like crap if you pile up 2+ blinks of an eye on top of them. In the case of VR, even one “blink of an eye” is about 10x too much delay

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#102
post #51
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amp gives you non logged in versions of websites. Anyone whos usually logged in somewhere is impacted negatively

Fair. So far there are three issues pointed out here that I'm not happy with too. To re-cap: 1) Sharing AMP links is weird, feels wrong and Non-AMP links are hard to get 2) Breaks Safari's reader mode 3) Gives sub-par experience for websites that provide better experience when logged in since the AMP version is always the non-logged-in version. None of those are deal-breaker for me because AMP pages come as a search…

4) if you don’t want amp it’s an extra click (once you’ve found the non-amp link) and going back then requires two clicks

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#103
post #96
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not nearly as bad as Facebook.

Is FB on an engineering resume actually bad?

No, any household name megacorp on your resume is a good thing and a golden ticket to any job you want, evil or not

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#104

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…

> 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.”

wow i love when Silicon Valley literally throws away people's time. imagine the cumulative total time being wasted by this artificial delay...

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#105
If this becomes too big of a deal then Google will just shut down Google Ads to other sites, or spin it out as a separate entity. It doesn't make them that much money compared to just running ads on their own site, and nobody can claim they are anti-competitive in a marketplace that only serves ads for their own sites.

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#106
post #30
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's crazy to me that the team dedicated to AMP had no control and awareness of any schemes were pulled behind their back. This is such a huge org problem. Unless, of course, the team leadership was on it and this was an insider job.

If the allegations are true, they knew exactly what was happening and even took steps to make it seem like Google was not in full control of AMP. Whether front line engineers knew isn't that important. AMP Leadership definitely did.

> AMP Leadership definitely did.

did they though? couldn't this be a small (artificial delay) library injected server side by some higher ups at Google?

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google should be sliced horizontally, not vertically. Each resulting company would own a percentage of current business.

sure lets slice the computers, engineers and offices horizontally as well

downvote all you want but the parent comment makes no sense - you can't horizontally slice products - that would only make sense if Google had clients that could split fairly among several sub-companies. But sure keep armchairing.

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#108
post #87

I've had a few people call me a shill for Google on these threads since I'm a Xoogler/Ex-Facebooker (it's literally in my profile) so I'm going to quote myself here [1] from 7 months ago: > Giving advantageous ranking (including, but not limited to, showing AMP content in Top Stories) is the very definition of using your market power in one area (search) to force publishers to adopt something else you created. > For…

> There was a time when the idea wasn't terrible because a lot of websites were terrible and slow on mobile

Yes, and that time was the early 2000's, and the solution was not AMP but WAP[1]. Google effectively re-invented WAP about 15 years after it was no longer necessary.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_Application_Protocol

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#109
post #40

159-169, about Google being able to decrypt end-to-end encrypted WA (WhatsApp) communications is terrifying. The fact that Google has known this for over 5 years and made no effort to notify the public is what really got me. What's fucked up is that Google Drive backups are the only ones WA offers, and naturally everyone wants their messages backed up so they turn it on, not knowing the implications.

Slight nitpick I know but decrypt here is the not quite the right word. The communications are still encrypted in flight but they are necessarily decrypted (by WhatsApp) on the end (your device). This unencrypted file is then provided to drive if you select back up with Google drive in WhatsApp. I'm in two minds about this one. I'm not really a fan of Google but realistically we're talking about backing up messages f…

> This unencrypted file is then provided to drive if you select back up with Google drive in WhatsApp.

And in terms of the grandparent's point about the public not being notified for 5 years, perhaps not by Google is accurate, though it was raised by Telegram's founder in response to Snowden's recommendation of WA back in 2016 [1] and covered elsewhere [2]. Snowden was rather dismissive of the relevant point about this, which always puzzled me.

[1] https://twitter.com/durov/status/778618631060066304

[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20170729003715/https://www.makeu...

Post reply on HN