Live data from Hacker News

Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

storage.courtlistener.com

251–260 of 270 posts

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#251
post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean Google Ads - and no they don't have to be too tied together. What is so special about Google Search that Google Ads has to be owned by the same entity? I have websites with ads on them and I don't own the ad network either like 99.99999% of every other publisher out there

Because they sell specially-formatted ad spots that are supposed to look like results, not generic display ads.

They can continue to do that and it doesn't need to be part of the broader Google Ads entity that places ads on other websites and operates an even broader ad exchange

Think about Pinterest, Quora, or FB, for example, they have "native ads" but they don't operate Internet-wide ad exchanges

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#252
post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first one helps to discredit the litigation. The paragraph’s first sentence is supposed to insinuate that Google is lying about not selling people’s data, and the rest of the paragraph says that Google is not selling data. And then the last sentence makes a completely false claim using popular buzzwords. What was the point of the paragraph, other than to invoke unnecessary emotions for no reason?

The jurors (your average american) won't notice that the first paragraph contains no content.

Is it worth considering then that maybe they would still be right to be shocked? It suggests that while technically not correct to say they sell the personal data, it may be an immaterial nuance because the negative effect is still the same. Third party publishers can use your personal data, through Google, to target you. That they don't get to see the data is irrelevant to that revelation. The nuance of implementation that makes this technically not a violation of privacy is no secret to those in tech, but I doubt the average American would care.

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#253
post #25

What a read. Almost every single paragraph in the document leaves me speechless. For example, quoting from the document: "Google likes to claim that it will “never sell your personal information to anyone,” with Google CEO Sundar Pichai deceptively claiming that such a policy is “unequivocal.” But Google leverages intimate user data and personal information to broker billions of daily online ad impressions between pu…

> In Orwellian terms, it’s a beautiful thing for Google, the destruction of words like “sell” and “personal.”" Disagree with the claim here. Certainly, Google is utilizing your personal information against you, but: 1. That's certainly not selling your personal info. 2. To make this argument, US states must concede that active commercial advertising has an aspect of harm and manipulation. I doubt any of them are actu…

Technically not sharing your user data, I would suggest that in practical terms it is selling the use of your personal data. It's a nuance that may not matter in the publics eyes, which I frankly agree with.

So if we may agree that it is exploitive but not technically illegal, then I think we can reason that we are the edge of what is right to do and it's time to consider how to make the exploitive thing illegal.

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#254
post #137

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…

The unredacted document is here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.56...

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#255
post #252
post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The jurors (your average american) won't notice that the first paragraph contains no content.

Is it worth considering then that maybe they would still be right to be shocked? It suggests that while technically not correct to say they sell the personal data, it may be an immaterial nuance because the negative effect is still the same. Third party publishers can use your personal data, through Google, to target you. That they don't get to see the data is irrelevant to that revelation. The nuance of implementati…

How is it not a material nuance? An individual’s data is not leaving Google’s computers.

Is anyone harmed or anyone’s privacy violated even an ad buyer is allowed to choose to restrict ads to ad recipients likely to have certain characteristics?

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 V…

> than I did getting paid to knife fight for their scraps.

Seriously, cut the drama. Amazon fulfillment workers can say they are "getting paid to knife fight for their scraps.". There is no way that statement needs to apply to tech workers.

It sounds as if you are forgetting there is a world outside silicon valley, startups and fortune 500 companies. In most countries SMB's account for almost 50% of the economy.

> I feel so much better aligned getting paid by big tech to build cool tools for engineers

Well thats actually an honest statement; You want money, cool toys and these outweigh any moral concerns with big tech.

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#257
post #119
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

How centralised is AMP in theory and in practise?

4/9 of the technical steering committee are Google employees, and 3 others are from big tech platforms (Pinterest, Microsoft, Twitter)

https://github.com/ampproject/meta-tsc/blob/master/README.md

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#258
post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In Orwellian terms, it’s a beautiful thing for Google, the destruction of words like “sell” and “personal.”" Disagree with the claim here. Certainly, Google is utilizing your personal information against you, but: 1. That's certainly not selling your personal info. 2. To make this argument, US states must concede that active commercial advertising has an aspect of harm and manipulation. I doubt any of them are actu…

Technically not sharing your user data, I would suggest that in practical terms it is selling the use of your personal data. It's a nuance that may not matter in the publics eyes, which I frankly agree with. So if we may agree that it is exploitive but not technically illegal, then I think we can reason that we are the edge of what is right to do and it's time to consider how to make the exploitive thing illegal.

The writer of the doc sports a quill of unbearable lightness: it is very much an Orwellian thing, to stretch selling something to include using the knowledge of that thing in marketing something else.

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#259
post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it worth considering then that maybe they would still be right to be shocked? It suggests that while technically not correct to say they sell the personal data, it may be an immaterial nuance because the negative effect is still the same. Third party publishers can use your personal data, through Google, to target you. That they don't get to see the data is irrelevant to that revelation. The nuance of implementati…

How is it not a material nuance? An individual’s data is not leaving Google’s computers. Is anyone harmed or anyone’s privacy violated even an ad buyer is allowed to choose to restrict ads to ad recipients likely to have certain characteristics?

It's immaterial because the result of using the data is the same, the advertiser doesn't actually want my name and email, they just want to use information about me to target me better. Imagine instead of web advertising, it were phone calls. A random bicycle company calls you up one day and says, Hey Buddy, we know you were in a bicycle accident recently, we have a deal on new bicycles right now! You ask them where they got your number and how they know you were in an accident, and they say they don't actually know your number, they just bought the phonecall. It's immaterial that they don't know your phone number, because they're using it and information about you in order to influence you anyway.

That's the web advertising apparatus right now. Users are unaware of how much information about themselves they give up, and advertisers are happy to use that information to sell you stuff when you're most willing to buy it.

I personally find that manipulative and unethical, and I believe if it were outlined to the general public then they would also be pretty disgusted with the behavior.

I won't dispute that an actual privacy violation would be much worse, since a malicious actor can do more than advertise with real user data, but that doesn't make this scenario good either. For this particular purpose I don't think it matters if they have the real data or not.

Re: Google digital advertising antitrust litigation [pdf]

#260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 V…

> than I did getting paid to knife fight for their scraps. Seriously, cut the drama. Amazon fulfillment workers can say they are "getting paid to knife fight for their scraps.". There is no way that statement needs to apply to tech workers. It sounds as if you are forgetting there is a world outside silicon valley, startups and fortune 500 companies. In most countries SMB's account for almost 50% of the economy. > I…

At one company I was asked to make demos of things that didn’t work and never would. I listened to the ceo lie to the faces of law enforcement and gov bigwig potential customers as they paraded themselves around the room behind us, watching the tech geniuses work their magic. I witnessed junior employees get screamed at routinely, more or less for being junior.

The company before that overrode all engineering complaints and implemented call to cancel because it made money. My boss had to do it himself.

Both companies competed in a way not unlike a knife fight, meaning throw ethics out the window and pull every lever you can think of. Both had very few happy customers, and rolled every penny into ads and cloud spend, operating at a sickening loss despite locking b2b customers into large monthly contracts.

This is my experience in the industry. The company before that didn’t even pay me and jerked me around about options that weren’t worth anything anyway.

Your response seems quite uncharitable. I mentioned getting paid on both sides, so yes it’s important. I would like to retire some day and live in modest comfort until then. I have young children and happily live in the sf bay.

I said nothing about cool toys. I like that I get to work on a passion project that will likely be open source some day. I like that my customers are engineers and that they chat with me directly.

Generally speaking, if a company isn’t doing every legal (and possibly illegal but unlikely to be enforced) thing to gain competitive advantage, it will be out competed. It is the responsibility of the government to keep the laws up to date.

Companies are not good. They can sometimes be owned by people who are willing to sacrifice profits for warm fuzzy feelings, but that’s an unstable position that will be corrected when ownership changes.

I feel secure knowing I work for a company that turns a large profit and has already pulled all the levers available to them to make more. Less nasty surprises that way.

Post reply on HN