231–240 of 361 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A regulated US-based exchange like, say, FTX US or Binance US?
If you do a minimal amount of research (reading wikipedia), you'll learn that neither FTX nor Binance are US-based
Google operates an exchange for a digital asset, is a major vendor/trader of said asset on that exchange and operates an algorithmic trading platform to enable people to buy and sell on that exchange. On top of that the algorithmic trades are a "black box" with no audit trail, and no public insight into how it operates. If that sounds familiar, think illegal crypto exchanges... Obviously "ads" are not "securities", b…
Imagine if a supermarket not only sold goods but also controlled all supply chains, decided on the prices of every product, and owned the only transportation system in town. All the while, it keeps track of every item you've ever bought or looked at, and how much you're willing to spend on groceries. The supermarket then uses this data to influence product pricing, availability, and transportation routes...And it's t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a load of revisionist history. FTX's schemes were only exposed AFTER they couldn't handle withdrawals. Anyone who follows crypto closely knows that every crypto exchange is crooked. Even crypto bros will tell you that. I can say that Binance is shady and likely stealing from their customers and I'll more likely to be correct than not. Saying FTX was shady before they were exposed was not a bold statement.
Not revisionist, you can literally just search reddit for posts from before the collapse to confirm. https://old.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/cj5ovr/ftx_... (2019) https://old.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/m6b53a/sbf_... (2021) You're right about Binance, but the same wouldn't be true about Fidelity, Coinbase, Kraken, etc. People with an axe to grind about crypto like to pretend the industry is homogen…
But no one figured out that FTX was 100% scam, moved billions from their customers, commingled funds with Alameda until after the collapse. This is despite being on the blockchain.
My point is that the transparency of blockchains does not matter for crypto exchanges. They have a million ways to scam their customers without being noticed on chain.
"The Commission is concerned that Google’s allegedly intentional conducts aimed at giving [Google’s ad exchange] AdX a competitive advantage and may have foreclosed rival ad exchanges." So the goal is for there to be more competition among advertisers? That might help ad purchasers (ie. mostly corporations), but consumers are still going to be screwed as this does nothing to stop the spying and advertising that are w…
Of course that’s all just deck chairs on the titanic. We need to make Display advertising illegal world-wide…
Assiming this happened, and it worked as expected, the result would be: * more ads, as competition drives down prices * worse ads as cheaper adds don't need to be as relevant but do need to be more eye catching / shocking to compete for attention. * less money to pay for the services ad revenue cover, so maybe you have to pay for gmail or get more spam etc People seem to miss that "Competition" is not an ends in itse…
the result would be: more ads, as competition drives down prices worse ads as cheaper adds don't need to be as relevant but do need to be more eye catching / shocking to compete for attention. That's exactly what happened already — because of Google. Before Google AdSense, web sites used to be able to select high-quality ads from reputable advertising companies. You could get $100+ CPM for some campaigns from TribalF…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've slipped down quite the slope to go from antitrust of companies operating in the jurisdiction to foreign natural persons.
Not really. When did the Chinese CFTC do something like this to any american? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_flash_crash#Evidence_of_m...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meng_Wanzhou
China then "co-incidentally" arrested 2 Canadians.
The whole thing is a shit show and it would be better for everyone if countries were more reasonable and agreed to avoid a "race to the bottom"
>EU is “concerned that Google has made it harder for rival online advertising services to compete in the so-called ad tech stack.” There are plenty of competitors in the ad tech space. China created TikTok. Korea created KaoKaoTalk. Even Japan created Line. Meanwhile, the EU, for all it's antitrust regulation, hasn't created anything substantial. Perhaps, it's the burdensome regulation that's the problem.
break every company up! Each "bet" in Alphabet needs to be broken. Each business unit within Google needs to be broken. Same with Apple. Break that up to between services and hardware. Force them to open up their new silicon. Why can't other companies use the H1 or H2 chips for their headphones? why are we letting Apple have the competitive advantage? Open up the App Store and force new payment methods. Microsoft als…
Before anyone makes the argument that the EU should have no jurisdiction over an American entity, please remember that Google sells its services in Europe. It's well within the jurisdiction of the EU to regulate how anyone does business here. Google Ireland alone had a 50B euro turnover. The breaking up of monopolies used to be in the toolbox of American antitrust policies, back when America enforced antitrust legisl…
It should not follow that placing a service on the web makes you subject to the jurisdiction of anyone who chooses to use it.