"Project Bernanke" ie, a licence to print money. I bet they're perhaps regretting their witty code name right now.
That they would even use that name indicates they hold themselves superior and beyond reproach. That bubble seems about to burst now.
U.S. states file updated antitrust complaint against Google
51–60 of 261 posts
Re: U.S. states file updated antitrust complaint against Google
#52I 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…
> 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.
You are unintentionally projecting what you believed to be the truth, thinking that others also believed the same as you. I can assure you that not all of America thought those FANG companies were solving our problems.
Re: U.S. states file updated antitrust complaint against Google
#53As more data comes out about Google, Apple, Amazon, one simple underlying thing becomes clear: a single company cannot be trusted to operate a marketplace while also being a participant.
Apple's App Store insider knowledge lets them discover popular apps, then boot them off the platform when they decide to compete. Amazon sees what products are successful and profitable, then makes knock-offs which they promote over the originals. And now, reading into this, Google is manipulating their ad markets using inside knowledge.
It's all very profitable.
If we cannot trust large companies to not abuse this kind of power, then they should be prevented by law from playing both sides. This may result in the breakup of some very large companies, akin to the 1934 Air Mail Act that broke up Boeing.
Re: U.S. states file updated antitrust complaint against Google
#54It is mentioned in the article, but Google lost an appeal in the EU recently, related to ranking of its price search engine. But one wonders whether that's really such a big deal for Google. An interesting detail instead arises from the other cases. The one case Google apparently WANTS to settle out of court is the case on the use of data! Now, this should tell the careful reader quite a bit about what Google thinks…
> The one case Google apparently WANTS to settle out of court is the case on the use of data!
Generally, companies want to settle out of court in order to bring a case to a defined conclusion and limit future liabilities. Along that vein, it's not an accident that this case is now news after the judgement in the EU.
Re: U.S. states file updated antitrust complaint against Google
#55"Project Bernanke" ie, a licence to print money. I bet they're perhaps regretting their witty code name right now.
For the unfamiliar: in his role as Chair of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke became somewhat infamous for his endorsement of "quantitative easing" as a response to the 2008 financial crisis. This was (oversimplified) a mildly fancy way of flooding banks with newly-printed money to offset the impact of falling asset prices. Bernanke became known in some circles as "Helicopter Ben" in reference to an earlier speech in which he (in turn) approvingly referenced Milton Friedman's thought experiment of a "helicopter drop" of cash to the general public as a method for boosting liquidity in the economy [1].
(I feel compelled to point out that as far as I can tell, there doesn't seem to be a solid consensus that quantitative easing was objectively poor policy under the circumstances; a lot of this discourse apparently fell somewhere in the gray area between good-natured ribbing, vacuous memeing, economics school schisms, and mockery of the ostensible hypocrisy of "fiscally conservative" Republicans).
Re: U.S. states file updated antitrust complaint against Google
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Abusing your (near) monopoly position to drive out competition is illegal. Yes, but it happens so often with so little attention paid that stories like this more often make me think a politician is looking for election funding rather than trying to enforce the law.
Is that looking a gift horse in the mouth?
Not really, when any investigations or actions are likely to be indefinitely delayed as soon as a lobbyist writes check. If they actually do something other than slap-on-the-wrist fines that don't even do damage, you won't hear me complaining, but I don't have high expectations. The EU seems to be far more interested in reigning in big tech, but they don't seem to be any more succesful, and their most substantive efforts have had lackluster results (I mean, really, is anyone's privacy improved by having more javascript popups added to every single page? Does it even lower the potential for tracking and abuse, let alone reduce the actual commission of such acts?).
Re: U.S. states file updated antitrust complaint against Google
#57As more data comes out about Google, Apple, Amazon, one simple underlying thing becomes clear: a single company cannot be trusted to operate a marketplace while also being a participant . Apple's App Store insider knowledge lets them discover popular apps, then boot them off the platform when they decide to compete. Amazon sees what products are successful and profitable, then makes knock-offs which they promote over…
Another example: FDA is funded by pharma companies.
Re: U.S. states file updated antitrust complaint against Google
#58Earlier 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…
> 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. Find a monopoly and you'll probably find a regulation propping it up. For many of these tech companies it's DMCA 1201 and other things that prohibit adversarial interoperability. If you have a law that lets you boot competitors out of adjacent markets once…
Re: U.S. states file updated antitrust complaint against Google
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was going to ask the same thing. Also using some info from the WSJ comment below. - WSJ: "Texas alleges that Google used its access to data from publishers’ ad servers—where more than 90% of large publishers use Google to sell their digital ad space—to guide advertisers toward the price they would have to bid to secure an ad placement." - This is bid optimization & bid shading no? Both helping buyers place a high e…
I don't fully understand the mechanics either, but one point of clarification that might help. > - "Google allegedly dropped the second-highest bids" >> - So publishers still got paid the highest bid? During the relevant period and until end of 2021, Google is running a second price auction. The highest bid wins and then pays the second highest bid.
Yeah that's what I wrote in the later part the $10,7,5 example I thought might be the case.
If that's the flat out only thing literally happening, I can't think of a reasonable reason that would be in the best interest of the publishers paying google to sell supply side.
it's all jumbled when you control all sides of the auction and infrastructure which is the real problem IMHO.
Maybe I can see a scenario where bid shading is conflated here a bit or at least complicates the scenario.
For instance 'drop' the 2nd bid maybe means placing a lower bid instead of 'deleting' one.
all DSPs have a good sense of what will win the auction and offer bid shading to buyers.
Just trying to think through that line of thought. For instance I buy political ads. Google knows that video inventory X usually sells for $30 CPM, but my settings have $50 CPM max bids because during the election it's hard to get scale sometimes. my DSP would bid shade lower to say $30.01 on that individual impression, and if I happen to be the 2nd price maybe that is 'drop' they are refering too?
IDK i don't think traditional news media reporting here will ever give enough information / they understand enough
Re: U.S. states file updated antitrust complaint against Google
#60As more data comes out about Google, Apple, Amazon, one simple underlying thing becomes clear: a single company cannot be trusted to operate a marketplace while also being a participant . Apple's App Store insider knowledge lets them discover popular apps, then boot them off the platform when they decide to compete. Amazon sees what products are successful and profitable, then makes knock-offs which they promote over…
The underlying assumption is that this behavior is bad.
Why is it bad? Especially bad enough to be regulated by a new law?