Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EU suggests breaking up Google's ad business in preliminary antitrust ruling

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 361 posts

Re: EU suggests breaking up Google's ad business in preliminary antitrust ruling

#261

Post by jefftk »

EscapeFromNY wrote: post #243
jefftk wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Yes, being able to read smart contracts and audit transactions on the blockchain is how everyone knew FTX stealing customer funds from years ago. > Yes in fact! Your first link is someone saying "I told you so", but there's no mention of reading smart contracts or auditing blockchain transactions. Instead it's something like, SBF seemed very fishy to him. Ex, "if you actually listened to him speak, it was obvious…

Those are fair points. Here is someone using blockchain analysis in 2021 https://old.reddit.com/r/solana/comments/qs3hb5/alameda_buyi... My memory of general sentiment is different, but again you can't prove something like that. As far as hard data, all I can think to offer is this breakdown of FTX's creditors by country, compiled from the bankruptcy filing. https://nitter.net/pic/orig/media%2FFiMwSncXEIMlb70.png The…

The Reddit link is analysis of public information, but the gist of that comment thread seems to be "Alameda is buying, I'm going to buy too" and not "evidence of improper FTX/Alameda separation".

With the customer distribution, how much of this is downstream from the crypto industry avoiding high-regulation countries? The biggest two are the Caymans (22%) and the Virgin Islands (11%) -- how many of those people are really Americans?

Re: EU suggests breaking up Google's ad business in preliminary antitrust ruling

#262

Post by brap »

mattkevan wrote: post #193
aurareturn wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

99% of the people don't care. That's why there are 2.1 billion people on Facebook. Without surveillance capitalism, prices for services would go up or would cease to be free. The ad-driven business model is a legitimate one. I assume that you use a free service from Google/Facebook/Microsoft? So you must not care about surveillance capitalism either. At least not care enough.

Maybe businesses without a legitimate business model shouldn’t be in business?

These businesses earn billions from customers that are gladly paying for their services, because they get value out of it. You call the business "illegitimate", but there are literally millions of paying customers that disagree with you, and they put their money where their mouth is. A lot of money.

Re: EU suggests breaking up Google's ad business in preliminary antitrust ruling

#263

Post by aurareturn »

aaomidi wrote: post #258
aurareturn wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do. Neeva, founded by a former Google exec, built a search engine that had no ads and no tracking. No surveillance capital. They just shut down because no one wanted to pay for it - hence the idea that 99% don't care about surveillance capital enough. Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-65671468

1. Neeva sounds like a hairspray brand. Not a search engine. 2. It's literally just a claim. I have no way of verifying the claim. Them asking me to pay for it makes it more sus. 3. I use searx already. Which I can confirm isn’t “spying” on me because it has nothing to tie me to my IRL identity. 4. It was a Bing reseller. I don’t care for Bing resellers.

The point is that it had no "surveillance capitalism". It failed because no one cares about that enough - proving that people prefer free with data mining/ads over subscriptions for many internet products.

Re: EU suggests breaking up Google's ad business in preliminary antitrust ruling

#264

Post by cageface »

prox wrote: post #218
cageface wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google deserves a lot of recent criticism but at the same time I think they provide an important counterbalance to Apple and Microsoft. I especially don’t want to see Android go away as the only competitor to iOS.

“Google is bad but don’t take away my counterbalance against Apple/MS?” , bit of an odd conclusion. Breaking up a monopoly is always good, it will give us consumers more choice. Gives them less power of politicians. Plus Android is open source so I think you got nothing to worry about.

Their competitors are also engaged in a lot of market abuse for which they’ve mostly emerged unscathed.

Re: EU suggests breaking up Google's ad business in preliminary antitrust ruling

#265

Post by aurareturn »

brap wrote: post #262
mattkevan wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe businesses without a legitimate business model shouldn’t be in business?

These businesses earn billions from customers that are gladly paying for their services, because they get value out of it. You call the business "illegitimate", but there are literally millions of paying customers that disagree with you, and they put their money where their mouth is. A lot of money.

Today I learned that most people on HN does not understand basic economics. Or maybe they do but their comments are clouded by their hatred of big tech. Not referring to you brap.

Re: EU suggests breaking up Google's ad business in preliminary antitrust ruling

#266

Post by sensanaty »

senttoschool wrote: post #17
stefan_ wrote: post #11

Is there anyone who would seriously disagree ?

I disagree. I think this sets a bad precedence. Who's next? Apple? Microsoft? There needs to be some formal process in which countries can vote/object to these things. Breaking up Google has ramifications for the entire world. Europe should not abuse this sort of power. I don't see Europe breaking up Luxottica, LVHM, De Beers Group.

> Who's next? Apple? Microsoft?

I genuinely can't tell if this is a shitpost or not, because yes absolutely we should target Apple and M$ as well.

Re: EU suggests breaking up Google's ad business in preliminary antitrust ruling

#267

Post by nova22033 »

Aunche wrote: post #21

>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.

EU gave us the "Accept all cookies" button.

Re: EU suggests breaking up Google's ad business in preliminary antitrust ruling

#268

Post by aurareturn »

_vere wrote: post #162
aurareturn wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can say the same about LVMH in the luxury goods market. I don't see Europe trying to break up one of their own companies.

The luxury goods market is not infrastructure. Not to say they shouldn't be broken up, but google is owning the roads you drive on, your car, everyone else's car and every parking space. The scale of the issue is just MUCH worse. Its not good that if you want the expensive child labor clothes, you have little choice but to buy from LVMH, but like, you can get other clothes. If you want to rid yourself of googles infl…

Neither is Google. If Google said they're going to disappear in 30 days, the world will move on and every single one of their services will be replaced.

Re: EU suggests breaking up Google's ad business in preliminary antitrust ruling

#269

Post by sensanaty »

bbor wrote: post #205
throwaway462910 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the claim being pre-emptively argued against though

Not sure there’s anyone in here arguing for google. Poor little google, being bullied by all us hackers…

You should check out the thread, lots of people throwing themselves in front of the firing line because I guess they think that messing with Google will somehow translate to messing with their own startups or whatever.

Re: EU suggests breaking up Google's ad business in preliminary antitrust ruling

#270

Post by kneebonian »

belter wrote: post #178
samwillis wrote: post #120

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…

It's funny you say that because in the mid 2000's everyone was saying that was exactly what Wal-Mart is doing.
Post reply on HN