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

141–150 of 270 posts

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#141

Post by unknownOrigin »

magicalist wrote: post #128
windexh8er wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> It seems to me this is yet another validation That's just what I mean. There's a tiny amount of validation and a lot of rhetoric. It would be preferable to be able to see the actual sources they're quoting from.

It would be preferable if people paid by Google wouldn't astroturf this site every time Google is caught doing something dirty.

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#143

Post by jeffbee »

dmw_ng wrote: post #138
jeffbee wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it's not centralized at all in other words? Because it's an open standard that anyone can implement, both client and server, right? 100% totally decentralized.

AMP requires you load all JS assets from cdnproject.org, which is owned by Google. It is as centralized as it comes

AMP does not require any such thing. Anyone can implement the AMP cache, there are multiple existing AMP caches, and you can serve AMP without a cache, without in any way impairing the function of an AMP page.

https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/blob/main/docs/spec/am...

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#144

Post by jeffbee »

Jensson wrote: post #139
jeffbee wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's sort of amazing how people are boosting this lawsuit up to the front page of HN dozens of times over three days, without really seeming to grasp that it is one side of a civil law suit, and that anyone would be a fool to take a filing like this at face value. It's a little thin on evidence, don't you think? Normally when the attorneys general of Kentucky and South Dakota put their heads together about something,…

Newcorp and the other media's anti google campaign has worked flawlessly. Even techies boarded the train and now think Google is worse than Microsoft or Apple. At worst Google is as bad as Microsoft or Apple if all the things the articles accuse them of is true. I don't work for Google nor own Google stocks, but among the things I am afraid of Google using its position to capture a bit too much of the ad-market is am…

Yep. You'd expect a community like HN to understand that the newspaper industry is a gigantic evil cabal, but I guess we're just not collectively smart enough.

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#145

Post by dmw_ng »

jeffbee wrote: post #143
dmw_ng wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AMP requires you load all JS assets from cdnproject.org, which is owned by Google. It is as centralized as it comes

AMP does not require any such thing. Anyone can implement the AMP cache, there are multiple existing AMP caches, and you can serve AMP without a cache, without in any way impairing the function of an AMP page. https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/blob/main/docs/spec/am...

https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/issues/27546

Perhaps I'm wrong, but my interpretation of this ticket is that Google's AMP validator currently does not validate self-hosted JS, which means no special handling ("acceleration") on their search results.

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#146

Post by ls15 »

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?

> Any ideas why that would be and why the "blue" states aren't present?

Most of Google's political donations go to democrats.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/technology/90-perc...

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#147

Post by kylevedder »

unknownOrigin wrote: post #141
magicalist wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It seems to me this is yet another validation That's just what I mean. There's a tiny amount of validation and a lot of rhetoric. It would be preferable to be able to see the actual sources they're quoting from.

It would be preferable if people paid by Google wouldn't astroturf this site every time Google is caught doing something dirty.

That's a pretty bad faith reply. I'm not paid by Google to astroturf (feel free to look at my account) and I agree with magicalist: I want to see primary sources before drawing any significant conclusions.

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#148

Post by magicalist »

tyingq wrote: post #137
magicalist wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But not the documents these quotes come from, as far as I can tell.

I agree, but this seems pretty typical for an initial filing. They don't typically show all their cards. So snippets like: >Internally, Google employees grappled with “how to [publicly] justify [Google] making something slower.” Could be more, or less interesting, when the actual source document is published. There's some more detail in a highly redacted document here: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/defau…

> A second employee captured Google’s ultimate aim of destroying header bidding altogether, noting in response that [redacted]

So from a probably naive view, getting rid of header bidding seems like it would be faster, not slower. Is the assertion being made that it isn't faster and it just so happens to also enrich the ad network?

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#149

Post by username190 »

amelius wrote: post #132
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…

> 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.” That's it. Webmasters should give all visitors with a Chrome user agent a loading penalty of 1 second and a popup saying that the website runs faster on Firefox. I said it before on HN, but the idea was condemned, and I partially agreed, but now it seems (at least to me)…

IMO Action should be taken against Google here, not the average user (about 70% of whom use Chrome).

Throttling based on user agent (Firefox, WebKit Safari, etc) would be a bad thing if you ran YouTube and wanted to encourage people to use Chrome - it would likewise be bad if you ran a website like HN.

Users have power when they have control - Google is taking that away, and that's why antitrust legislation makes sense. But users lose power when their choice of browser (in a market where there are only 2-3 choices) makes their web experience artificially worse.

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#150

Post by magicalist »

unknownOrigin wrote: post #141
magicalist wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It seems to me this is yet another validation That's just what I mean. There's a tiny amount of validation and a lot of rhetoric. It would be preferable to be able to see the actual sources they're quoting from.

It would be preferable if people paid by Google wouldn't astroturf this site every time Google is caught doing something dirty.

Nope, but also please don't try to shut down conversation this way.
Post reply on HN