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

201–210 of 270 posts

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#201

Post by mrkramer »

blibble wrote: post #179
mrkramer wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the age of modern technology and the internet I think the sense and meaning of privacy is lost because everything is out there on the net waiting to be misused, abused, hacked, stolen, leaked or caught just like fish in the ocean. If I was US gov. I would've made law in the early 1990s that says every website, blog etc. is private property and no entity has right to crawl it if not given permission basically elimi…

> If I was US gov. I would've made law in the early 1990s that says every website, blog etc. is private property and no entity has right to crawl it if not given permission basically eliminating early Internet Search Engine industry meaning the behemoth like Google would probably never exist. it would have existed, just outside of the US

Crawling a website in my opinion is akin to someone snooping inside your house and making a index of rooms and stuff you have.

Robots.txt protocol exists but it is not even official internet standard under IETF. You can break robots.txt rules and there are no consequences at all. If robots.txt protocol was made law then it would be whole another story.

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#202

Post by perihelions »

seaman1921 wrote: post #107
seaman1921 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's simple, you just have $GO deliver the left half of the searchbar while $OG handles the right.

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#203

Post by ethbr0 »

tyingq wrote: post #165
ethbr0 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you need to keep revenue graphs going up and to the right, because that's the primary KPI your unit is judged on, at some point it's technically easier to handicap competition than improve your own offering. I think this gives us a timestamp on when Google got there.

It does seem like the GOOGL shareholder expectation of compounded perpetual YoY revenue gains of > 25% leads to bad places. The YoY growth of end users is much smaller. Something like 5%. So at some point, the inflated expectations have to mean a dirty playbook.

Well, and nobody normally wakes up and says "I'm going to bend the law really hard and create a potential PR disaster, just because."

They do often say "My bonuses are tied to growth, and my management is putting extreme pressure on me to deliver something that's impossible, and I don't see any way of delivering it in the expected time... so I'm going to do it the only way I see."

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#204

Post by Const-me »

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.

I think banning online ads will be awesome for economy.

Serving ads is doesn't create any value. By now, it's just a tax to be payed to google/facebook.

Why do you think banning online ads gonna destroy the economy?

These internet companies don't even pay a lot of taxes, we allow them to move profit across jurisdictions to optimize.

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#205

Post by acomar »

billylindeman wrote: post #198
robbedpeter wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why principles are important. Living by a well considered and thoughtful set of beliefs, secular or otherwise, has an impact on the world. Even if things look hopeless, your actions contribute to the way life unfolds for everyone else. Even if things look trivial, not engaging in minor infractions against your beliefs is withholding that single drop from the flood. I won't ever use tiktok, and speak against i…

It always blows my mind seeing the things people who work at google/fb are willing to "walk out" / "protest" over, and then these insidious things they're willing to just sit back and let happen. When I moved to the bay area working at FB/Google was something I held in high regard and was a career goal of mine. Now I get hit up by recruiters from them often... and I don't message them back. It hurts thinking about ho…

> It always blows my mind seeing the things people who work at google/fb are willing to "walk out" / "protest" over, and then these insidious things they're willing to just sit back and let happen.

symbolic action is always easy. but you're asking them to strike (refuse to work) in response to unethical demands, without the collective backing of their peers, in an industry that views union activity with - at best - suspicion or outright derision. we all like to fancy that we'd be the ones to refuse to play along but the reality is that when it's you and your job and you're facing the possibility of not paying rent or eating food after being blacklisted from the industry in response to your actions...

don't judge the people who are doing what they have to in order to survive. they were compelled by people who had leverage over them and our ire should be for those people.

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#206

Post by KaiserPro »

eska wrote: post #98
KaiserPro wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you want something more restricted then just use RSS. It’s not centralized like AMP.

RSS only gave/gives me a headline. Its fairly rare that the entire article is available via RSS.

Also is doesn't help for dynamic search. The main situation I'm thinking of is I'm on moble searching for something thats hosted by a local news site. the AMP page generally loads in <2 seconds. The original page will take 5 megs of data, and ages to load.

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#207

Post by [deleted] »

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)…

[deleted]

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#208

Post by nkingsy »

billylindeman wrote: post #198
robbedpeter wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why principles are important. Living by a well considered and thoughtful set of beliefs, secular or otherwise, has an impact on the world. Even if things look hopeless, your actions contribute to the way life unfolds for everyone else. Even if things look trivial, not engaging in minor infractions against your beliefs is withholding that single drop from the flood. I won't ever use tiktok, and speak against i…

It always blows my mind seeing the things people who work at google/fb are willing to "walk out" / "protest" over, and then these insidious things they're willing to just sit back and let happen. When I moved to the bay area working at FB/Google was something I held in high regard and was a career goal of mine. Now I get hit up by recruiters from them often... and I don't message them back. It hurts thinking about ho…

I work in big tech

I selected all my previous companies because they seemed to have a worthy mission from the outside. Each disappointed me immensely. At startup scale you have to see the sausage be made or at least sit next to it.

I know big tech companies have too much power because every other company I’ve worked at would be most accurately described as an unscrupulous Rube Goldberg machine for moving money from VCs to ads+cloud.

Do what works for you, but don’t be so sure you’re engaging in a “better” way with this late-capitalist hellscape. I feel so much better aligned getting paid by big tech to build cool tools for engineers than I did getting paid to knife fight for their scraps.

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#209

Post by KennyBlanken »

option_greek wrote: post #42

Surprising that Volkswagen and Boeing can be under scrutiny and pay massive fines but this EvilCorp gets a pass at everything.

The surprising (or not so surprising) thing about VW was that anyone who works in ECU tuning can tell you that a)the emissions cheating has been going on for decades and b)everyone has been doing it. They can pop open the assembly language for the ECU and said "and here's where it detects a signal from the ABS controller that only two wheels are being driven, and here's the data table of mixture and timing values it switches to."

It was also pretty absurd given that the US used to exempt "trucks" (including SUVs and even "crossovers") from passenger car emissions standards. This was (decades ago) to make things easier for farmers, supposedly, by sparing them the cost of emissions control equipment on their farm trucks. But the auto industry sold the government on the concept that what amounted to a jacked up station wagon car on bigger tires somehow didn't need to meet the same emissions standards as a passenger car, so they got to make more powerful engines with less emissions controls, and this is part of the reason we have SUVs everywhere.

I've been told by multiple Ford superduty owners that they rip out the urea injection and diesel particulate filter systems because "they're unreliable" and "it's such a pain keeping the DPF fluid topped off" and "it hurts performance." You can buy DPF in damn near any gas station that sells diesel, any auto parts store, any big-box retailer, any truck stop...and you get a warning well before the tank runs dry.

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#210

Post by dessant »

deadbunny wrote: post #160
dessant wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're also pushing for the adoption of Signed HTTP Exchanges, with several Google employees defending the spec here on HN, comparing it to be merely like HTTPS in terms of publishers giving up control over their content. It's clear that Chrome must be separated from Google and Alphabet, nothing else will stop them from trying to colonize the web.

> It's clear that Chrome must be separated from Google and Alphabet, nothing else will stop them from trying to colonize the web. Or advocate for open alternatives, use Firefox, and make sure any site you build (or you build at work) work perfectly in non Chrome browsers.

> Or advocate for open alternatives

Yes, supporting other browsers is a given, but did you want to say "and advocate"? Advocating for alternatives alone will achieve close to nothing when you are faced with a cartel, regulatory action is desperately needed in this industry.

Post reply on HN