An enormous thread on alleged Google Facebook collusion • Hacker News Board

Re: An enormous thread on alleged Google Facebook collusion

#361

Post by ArtTimeInvestor » Wed, Oct 27, 2021, 2:47 PM UTC

p49k wrote: post #359

ArtTimeInvestor wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? I know people making a living by running one or multiple sites with adsense on it. What would you tell them they should do instead?

Two approaches: Reseller approach: Partner with a reseller that gives the publisher access to the reseller's own AdX and header bidding with a 15% or lower cut. Preferably a Google certified partner. A good reseller will work with the publisher to continually optimize/improve. Independent approach: Sign up for GAM, setup AdSense within GAM (via line items) so that other ad units can compete via dynamic allocation. Se…

Nice, thank you! I will talk to my "living on ad revenue" friends about it and see what they say.

I am surprised that all of this isn't automated and baked into Adsense already.

Re: An enormous thread on alleged Google Facebook collusion

#362

Post by kwertyoowiyop » Thu, Oct 28, 2021, 5:33 PM UTC

numair wrote: post #57

mrweasel wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only two of those I’m pretty sure could survive on their own is search and YouTube. Android and Chrome pretty much doesn’t have a business case. GCP might be big enough at this point, but is still just burning ad money. GSuite/GMail is again a maybe, but can it afford the infratructure? They would at least have to cribble the free tier.

Here, let me help you out with ways to find hard data that disprove these conjectures. > Android Take a look at recent court documents about the size of the Play Store revenues. It’s a multi-billion-dollar cash cow after paying off the carriers and device makers to keep their spyware loaded. > Chrome Google single handedly kept Mozilla running for over a decade with their search deal. The deal for iOS is worth billio…

Indeed. And 95% of all CEOs would probably jump at the chance to run any of these companies, even if they were not money factories right now.

Re: An enormous thread on alleged Google Facebook collusion

#363

Post by ehsankia » Fri, Oct 29, 2021, 4:51 PM UTC

im3w1l wrote: post #227

capableweb wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what more you can ask for than Whatsapp putting a descriptive text about encryption not being applied if use the export functionality, right next to the button to enable export functionality.

I didn't ask for anything. I just don't think most people know.

This is similar to the Incognito lawsuit. When you open an Incognito tab, there's clear and explicit text telling you exactly how it works and what it does/doesn't do, but now people are trying to sue because they can't read.

The export button explicitly says the backup is not encrypted by Whatsapp's E2E encryption. How is it Google's fault if users can't read basic warnings? Again, as GP asked, what more could they have done here?

Re: An enormous thread on alleged Google Facebook collusion

#364

Post by Hnrobert42 » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 10:45 AM UTC

saxonww wrote: post #203

Hnrobert42 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I don’t care that FB puts profits over people. That’s what I expect. They are a public corporation. FB’s board has a legal obligation (fiduciary responsibility) to make money for shareholders. Capitalism may suck, but it’s the law. Speaking of the law, Google’s abuses listed in this thread are what gall me. In Gulliver’s travels, the Lilliputians don’t strongly punish a common thief. You can just build a…

> FB’s board has a legal obligation (fiduciary responsibility) to make money for shareholders. Capitalism may suck, but it’s the law. This is often repeated but is (generally) incorrect. There's a lot of writing out there about how this is bs, e.g. [0]. People certainly think and act like this is the case, so the end result is often the same, but this is not good-natured corporate governors being helpless before the…

Your link doesn’t really support your argument. Your link argues that pursuit of profit does not fulfill the fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. My contention was that a fiduciary responsibility exists. That contention is not contested by your article.

Re: An enormous thread on alleged Google Facebook collusion

#365

Post by Hnrobert42 » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 10:46 AM UTC

twobitshifter wrote: post #199

Hnrobert42 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I don’t care that FB puts profits over people. That’s what I expect. They are a public corporation. FB’s board has a legal obligation (fiduciary responsibility) to make money for shareholders. Capitalism may suck, but it’s the law. Speaking of the law, Google’s abuses listed in this thread are what gall me. In Gulliver’s travels, the Lilliputians don’t strongly punish a common thief. You can just build a…

Fiduciary responsibility to maximize profits is a myth. It’s something that businesses hide their unethical behavior behind, but there’s no law that requires it according to the US Supreme Court. https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...

Your link doesn’t really support your argument. Your link argues that pursuit of profit does not fulfill the fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. My contention was that a fiduciary responsibility exists. That contention is not contested by your article.