[deleted]
U.S. states file updated antitrust complaint against Google
31–40 of 261 posts
Re: U.S. states file updated antitrust complaint against Google
#32> The lawsuit also highlights Google's use of a secret program dubbed "Project Bernanke" in 2013 that used bidding data to give its own ad-buying an advantage. For example, in a 2015 iteration of the program, Google allegedly dropped the second-highest bids from publishers' auctions, accumulated money into a pool and then spent that money to inflate only the bids belonging advertisers who used the company's Google Ad…
[deleted]
Re: U.S. states file updated antitrust complaint against Google
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
So? Do nothing and let the current monopoly get stronger?
I think it is a safe bet that there will always be new monopolies developing. There are always new markets, and benefits often don't scale linearly with growth. It's a complicated, error-prone business, trying to disrupt monopolies effectively in such a way that is actually beneficial to the community. If you think about it, the cost/benefit analysis is based largely on economic predictions which are never that accur…
Shouldn't the DOJ not be concerned with the economic impact? Isn't their objective Justice not Economic Prosperity?
Re: U.S. states file updated antitrust complaint against Google
#34It'd be great if states actually focused on real problems like education and medicine instead of going after tech which provides services for free and is generally liked. No one is blaming tech for debt or financial ruin.
You cannot be serious. Where do you think all that money went?
Re: U.S. states file updated antitrust complaint against Google
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it is a safe bet that there will always be new monopolies developing. There are always new markets, and benefits often don't scale linearly with growth. It's a complicated, error-prone business, trying to disrupt monopolies effectively in such a way that is actually beneficial to the community. If you think about it, the cost/benefit analysis is based largely on economic predictions which are never that accur…
Shouldn't the DOJ not be concerned with the economic impact? Isn't their objective Justice not Economic Prosperity?
In the US, they are concerned with economic impact, they do a whole in-depth economic cost/benefit analysis as part of determining if it's worth breaking up a monopolist. Whatever 'justice' means in this scenario seems highly subjective. If a monopolist was providing by far the best/cheapest goods and services, more people might prefer that scenario to an alternative competitive market with less benefit on average.
It's arguably unjust for the government to handicap specific people, but also unjust for others not to feel like they all have a fair shot to capture the market. Any time people, not fate, are in charge of handicapping some people will think they are getting the shaft.
Re: U.S. states file updated antitrust complaint against Google
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also aside from corruption and capture, there are external forces. States really have little leverage, they want competition but could really just wind up completely unserviced as a corporation says bye bye to their irrelevant market. The feds dont go heavy handed as they have the capability to and massive leverage, but actually debilitating a company could be giving the market to the other remaining companies which…
So? Do nothing and let the current monopoly get stronger?
They just try to make their stance clear that they want competition to be more organic than whatever they are reacting to. Monopolies arent prohibited, anti-competitive practices are sanctionable.
Re: U.S. states file updated antitrust complaint against Google
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
During Obama it didn't seem like the problem it is today. I'm not saying it wasen't a problem, but America thought these FANG companies were solving our problems. I never liked Google Executives going to the White House, but I don't think it was because Obama sold out. Tech was very new. Google honestly wanted to help. It seemed like every young guy wanted to be Zuck. Hell even Zuck thought he could run for president…
You lived in a bubble, nobody wanted to be Zuck in my circles and he was mocked ruthlessly for how out of touch and selfish he was. His comment about becoming president was seen to reinforce that. Facebook was also widely seen as rapidly becoming the place for drama and vapid political commentary. This was ... college during 2008, so not exactly last year.
Yes, no one I knew wanted to be zuck.
But I'm surprised you could find much drama or political commentary through all the app spam of the late 00's in Facebook.
Re: U.S. states file updated antitrust complaint against Google
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
The DOJ has a lawsuit against Google in the works, it's even mentioned in the article. [[I'm hesitant to provide a citation as I'm not sure of the latest source]]
Also aside from corruption and capture, there are external forces. States really have little leverage, they want competition but could really just wind up completely unserviced as a corporation says bye bye to their irrelevant market. The feds dont go heavy handed as they have the capability to and massive leverage, but actually debilitating a company could be giving the market to the other remaining companies which…
> States really have little leverage, they want competition but could really just wind up completely unserviced as a corporation says bye bye to their irrelevant market.
The state of Texas has a GDP similar to that of Canada, the state of New York to that of Russia, the state of California to that of France. Are these irrelevant markets? Even Vermont, all the way at the bottom, is beating out El Salvador, Honduras, Haiti, etc.
Also note that multiple states are joining together in the same suit.
Even if a corporation was willing to abandon an entire state over this, then all the people in that state would need something else, and that something else would become big enough for third parties to have to care about it and thereby become a viable competitor everywhere. Which might just be the best thing that could happen.
Re: U.S. states file updated antitrust complaint against Google
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shouldn't the DOJ not be concerned with the economic impact? Isn't their objective Justice not Economic Prosperity?
In the US, they are concerned with economic impact, they do a whole in-depth economic cost/benefit analysis as part of determining if it's worth breaking up a monopolist. Whatever 'justice' means in this scenario seems highly subjective. If a monopolist was providing by far the best/cheapest goods and services, more people might prefer that scenario to an alternative competitive market with less benefit on average. I…
That sounds rational, but it's not. There's nobody, public or private sector, nobody at all that can make a real economic assessment of the value of a service line Facebook or Google. Those who claim otherwise are stupid, lying, or selling something. Markets and economics are unpredictable systems that have nothing to do with models of rational actors behaving in their own self interest. They're fundamentally extensions of chaotic biological systems and inherently resistant to oracles as a matter of mathematical reality.
What would be rational is if we actually endeavored as a society to make sure everyone is accountable to the same rules to the same degree. By using this magical thinking / cost benefit analysis, we're simply incentivizing victory for the best storytelling middleman.
Re: U.S. states file updated antitrust complaint against Google
#40I find it sad that all this is coming from state AGs and not from the DOJ and FTC. It just shows how corrupt our federal institutions are due to regulatory capture [1]. I still remember how Google escaped antitrust enforcement during the Obama presidency. There was a "revolving door" for Google execs and White House officials who would fill positions at both places [2]. When FTC prepared a massive report of Google's…
During Obama it didn't seem like the problem it is today. I'm not saying it wasen't a problem, but America thought these FANG companies were solving our problems. I never liked Google Executives going to the White House, but I don't think it was because Obama sold out. Tech was very new. Google honestly wanted to help. It seemed like every young guy wanted to be Zuck. Hell even Zuck thought he could run for president…
I was there in DC with Google from 2006-2012, and I think that's a fair view. We got asked if we could help, and wanted to help, so we tried where we could.
Of course now everyone just wants to paint everything with malicious and negative intent so I'm sure someone will in response, but it really was just a bunch of smart techies trying to help.
(Can't speak generally to zuck, but at least from what I saw people didn't really view Facebook and zuck the same way)