Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 1:06 PM UTC

KaiserPro wrote: post #88

cupcake-unicorn wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

for me, amp loaded quicker and had way less shit on it that took ages to load (like videos, tracking and stupid animations) Webdevs moaned because it restricted what they could do, which is partially why I liked it. They had to build a page that was fast, rather than fancy. However I do see the downsides, as google owns the stack, limits your choice.

Post by mahogany » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 1:15 PM UTC

mrkramer wrote: post #120

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.

>Given that Google is critical for US intelligence supremacy and technological dominance, I am curious what the US chooses to do with it. Peter Thiel says Google is anti-American because it chooses to work with China but not with US. I wouldn't quite agree with Thiel but I would say that Google's neoliberal culture and neoliberal agenda is starting to become destructive and counter- productive in the long term.

Post by jfoster » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 1:20 PM UTC

Xelbair wrote: post #59

jfoster wrote: post #5

I've seen lots of comments recently in response to the Google & Facebook advertising issues suggesting that Google should be split into X, Y, and Z. Most of the proposed splits seem like they would do absolutely nothing to address the issue at hand, though. The problem in digital advertising seems to be that Google controls the marketplace, as well as both the buy & sell sides. Even a "breaking apart" that proposes s…

I have slightly simpler proposition - ban digital advertising. Or at least ban the 'dynamic' one - the one which tries to match the user's preferences. Just static, random ads akin to TV or billboards next to the roads.

Post by magicalist » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 1:25 PM UTC

windexh8er wrote: post #123

magicalist wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are being awfully credulous of two sentence fragments quoted in an editorial paragraph. Much of this could certainly be true but my bullshit meter is going off on the level of narrative they're reconstructing in all the non-quoted portions. I dislike AMP because the UX is bad and Google strong armed it in the news carousel anyways instead of focusing on performance for all sites, but this would be a lot more c…

Bullshit meter? It seems to me this is yet another validation that Google is an ad sales company hell bent on preventing competition, controlling the market and lying to end users and integrators. All of these pieces are adding up - what was conjecture is finally being validated and I, personally, believe that Google is not in it for the good of the customer, but are only in it for a profit. Death to Google by thousa…

Post by matheusmoreira » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 1:32 PM UTC

colejohnson66 wrote: post #121

matheusmoreira wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just ban advertising straight up. This will kill Google, Facebook, Twitter and all the other companies ruining the web. Not one tear will be shed at this point. Also, make it a huge liability to store any kind of personal information. Apply heavy taxes on every single bit stored. These companies should be trying really hard to forget all about us the second they send our HTTP responses, not hoarding our personal info…

You know as well as I do that that will never happen and would probably destroy the economy. As bad as these companies are, flat out killing them is not a good idea.