Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal • Hacker News Board

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#121

Post by yokem55 » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 2:48 PM UTC

Closi wrote: post #58

cyborgx7 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read a lot of companies buy advertising specifically for their own name, because if they don't, a competitor will, and will appear first when someone googles the company name.

You are right - That’s another practice is morally dubious (And imo should be outlawed!) (Not on the purchasing companies side, but on google selling keywords for someone’s brandname which effectively forces companies into bidding for their own name)

> You are right - That’s another practice is morally dubious (And imo should be outlawed!)

Where this gets tricky is when a business has a name along the lines of [city name] [generic product category].

If this was outlawed, a competitor to a business named Foo-town Yard Care would be effectively blocked from advertising on Google.

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#122

Post by corobo » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 2:48 PM UTC

jqpabc123 wrote: post #4

Hello advertisers. You are being manipulated and abused just like the consumers you are targeting. There is very little evidence to show that invasive digital advertising is actually effective. When was the last time you clicked on one of these ads and actually made a purchase? Bad for consumers and bad for advertisers. Why continue with this opaque, profit sucking charade that mainly enriches those selling the ads?

> There is very little evidence to show that invasive digital advertising is actually effective

Wish.com would heavily disagree with you I'm sure. Almost everyone I know has ordered at least one thing off them, some use it more than Amazon these days for their overpriced useless junk needs

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#123

Post by csee » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 2:48 PM UTC

lazide wrote: post #93

sokoloff wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The shareholders reaped a lot of benefit along the way. It doesn’t seem outrageous to have the company (the shareholders in aggregate) pay fines related to the behavior.

The challenge historically was in making fines actually large enough to disincentivize doing it in the future. If G made $100 billion because of this, would the gov’t be successful in getting a $200 billion fine? What if they got $100 billion in revenue, but an additional $400 billion in market cap? Is a $800 billion fine doable? Historically, it seems like the answers to those are solid no’s, and after lawyers have…

Small fines probably even help them in the long run since they tame popular anger. I'd almost prefer no fines (in contrast to small fines) so people can transparently see how unaccountable they are. Ideally we can get big fines, though.

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#124

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 2:53 PM UTC

mabbo wrote: post #11

It takes two things for programs like "Jedi Blue" to happen. First, you need sociopaths in leadership positions who champion this 'great idea' they've figured out. These people often rise up in large companies because they are willing to do this sort of thing without any remorse. But second, you need developers to build it. A large number of them, usually, for a big project like this. Dozens of people like us knew th…

[deleted]

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#125

Post by rossdavidh » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 2:54 PM UTC

JustFinishedBSG wrote: post #55

SimeVidas wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe Google’s researchers are kept out of the loop.

Well I imagine so. But it still means google management decided to fund (relatively expensive) top notch research just to act as a front for their criminal operation.

One might want top-notch research, in case it reveals to you some way to maximize your own revenue that doesn't have the legal risk (which this very Twitter thread is related to). So they might have a true interest in the research, even if that's not how they're running things right now.

Also, many large corporations are best thought of as multiple personalities, with different parts of the organization acting in different ways.

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#126

Post by jeromegv » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 2:57 PM UTC

jollybean wrote: post #54

jqpabc123 wrote: post #4

Hello advertisers. You are being manipulated and abused just like the consumers you are targeting. There is very little evidence to show that invasive digital advertising is actually effective. When was the last time you clicked on one of these ads and actually made a purchase? Bad for consumers and bad for advertisers. Why continue with this opaque, profit sucking charade that mainly enriches those selling the ads?

This kind of rhetoric is problematically naive. Advertising effectiveness is often vague, but it also works well in many circumstances. It takes a certain kind of hubris to suggest that all these companies spending $500B on advertising have no idea what they are doing, and that if only they listened to HN/Reddit they could save so much money and make the world a better place. The issue here is to what extent G has ma…

In every discussion about advertising you typically get a comment similar near the top that tells us that advertising never actually works.

For a lot of us working in a related field, we know it to be false, there’s plenty of online business that rely on online ads and are profitable.

Yes they are invasive to your privacy. Yes some of them fake their effectiveness. Yes to all of that. But saying that advertising online doesn’t work at all and we all bought into a giant scam is just not rooted in reality.

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#127

Post by kory » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 2:58 PM UTC

slater wrote: post #83

DSingularity wrote: post #82

It’s interesting that only republican states are holding google accountable on all this.

Isn't that part of the whole "we're being silenced!!11~~" nonsense they've got going on?

It is nonsense?

Just a few months ago, facebook was banning people for the “lab leak theory,” and now it’s a widely accepted possibility.

Facebook bans people now for writing about vaccine side effects.

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#128

Post by merrywhether » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 2:59 PM UTC

kbos87 wrote: post #42

Dma54rhs wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're tricked if you think so yourself, all the small businesses measure it and that is why FB and Google are so rich. Its like saying you're been tricked to think computers are useful for your productivity, it's insanity. You can argue if big corps spending just to keep coca cola on in front of your eyes is useful or not. To what extent but that's entirely different conversation. When was the last time you died? De…

Agree completely. The sentiment that this is all a shell game and advertisers are being completely manipulated always seems to come from people who don’t have much domain expertise. I’d be quick to throw digital advertising to the wolves but the reality is that it’s extremely effective. Is there a level of opacity? Yes. Are there tranches of junk traffic and ineffective tools put forth by the ad networks? Absolutely.…

> You are being manipulated and abused just like the consumers you are targeting

Their first sentence was more correct: consumers are also getting value and the question is more whether the true cost is worth the benefit. For some people it definitely is, especially those who are skeptical and thus learn/measure/etc themselves. For others they give away far more than they get. For society/humanity as a whole it’s an open question, even more so once you start to include the second-order effects (in both directions, good and bad).

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#129

Post by literallyaduck » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 3:00 PM UTC

Here is how to contact your state Attorney General in the US:

https://www.usa.gov/state-attorney-general

If everyone asks them to do everything in their power to investigate the the illegal activities and prosecute all parties involved, we might have a chance at one biting.

Sending a message beyond an offensively small fine is crucial.

If you are in the EU or other locations please post similar information so it can be a global effort.

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#130

Post by y4mi » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 3:00 PM UTC

saimiam wrote: post #115

y4mi wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no, i didn't. nor can i comprehend how you got that idea. we were talking about how many people see internet adverts. you then linked a statistic implying that 42.7% of people wouldn't be reached because they're using adblockers. this is false, because most of these people will still be reached, as they're only occasionally using adblockers

> occasionally using adblockers I don’t think this is a common way people use adblockers. Do you have any way to back this up? > nor can I comprehend In your first comment, you mentioned AdBlock, the extension, in the context of 42.7% users using ad blocking technology. To me, it read like you thought that the backlinko url was saying 42.7% of internet users use AdBlock specifically.

you only have one internet-capable device you use each month?

i got a phone, two tablets, two laptops, a desktop and a TV.

my phone uses Blockada and firefox with ublock origin, they both block some ads, but some still get through.

one of the tablets is an ipad, which only has the buildin adblock. a lot of ads go through that. the other is a kindle paperwhite, thankfully without any ads.

the laptops and desktop pc are all using chrome/firefox with ublock origin. most ads are blocked, but some go through just as with my phone.

the TV has several devices connected to it:

    - xbox series x: unblockable ads
    - nintendo switch: unblockable ads
    - nvidia shield: unblockable ads.

for a while i tried to use Pihole for DNS-level adblocking, but it didn't really decrease the amount of ads i saw per day, so i eventually gave up on that.

so yes, i do everything i can to remove adverts from my life, and am nonetheless unable to remove them entirely. as such internet adverts will still influence me and few people invest as much time into blocking them as i do, which makes them generally more effective.

the reason i pointed out AdBlock Plus specifically was because of how many people use it. most of these people still see ads, because that specific adblocker only blocks advertisements from advertisers which haven't paid eyeo (the corp behind that extension) money.

    https://adblockplus.org/en/about#monetization