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

The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

thebignewsletter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 351 posts

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#191

Post by slowmovintarget »

esperent wrote: post #169
Aurornis wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why isn't US govt doing this? Because it would be incredibly unpopular, for one. Can you imagine being in the middle of some work, Googling a term, only to be hit with "Sorry, we're over the government limit and can't fulfill your search" Hacker News and Stack Overflow would be full of people trading tips about using VPNs to evade the limits. People don't actually like having the government restrict them from using…

I get that already every time I try to search Google in incognito and once every day or two for normal searches. Except it's "prove you're a human by completing these robotic tasks". You're right, I hate it and always switch to a different search engine instead. So, that's the goal here right?

Google's goal is to fingerprint you so they know exactly who you are on every site you visit. That's the point of WEI, to make the environment safe for their ad business, not better for you.

You using a VPN is just as outrageous to them as you attempting to use a working ad blocker.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#192

Post by huitzitziltzin »

hgs3 wrote: post #96

Antitrust laws are too reactive. We need proactive laws that break up companies if they grow beyond a certain size criteria. Ideally, the criteria would be aggressive enough to kill large corporations leaving behind only small to medium-sized businesses. The result would be markets with increased competition, more innovation, lower prices, more options for employment and self-employment, and the elimination of Big Co…

The point of antitrust law is to protect competition. It’s not to protect small firms nor to prevent the emergence of large ones. The kind of law you want is different, and in my opinion as an antitrust guy a very bad idea. To my knowledge no such law exists in any industrial democracy.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#193

Post by rolph »

smoldesu wrote: post #155
rolph wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>What makes you an authority on a subject the ability to make accurate predictions of outcome by way of knowledge, observation, and logical deliberation.

You seem to have misread the question. How does Google, an automated service, "make accurate predictions of outcome by way of knowledge, observation, and logical deliberation"?

they dont, and thats a major issue.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#194

Post by narism »

huitzitziltzin wrote: post #187

I appreciate the passion Matt Stoller brings to antitrust issues but his analyses are not good on the economics, to say the very least. I agree that some of google’s conduct is very questionable. It’s not obvious to me that paying to be the default search product is pro-competitive. On the other hand, the case that Google is going to make (and which I think is going to be really hard for the government to overcome) i…

>we (google) give our product away for free and so do our competitors.

Search is not Google’s product, it’s a way to get their product. Their product is eyeballs which they sell to advertisers.

>the cost of switching search engines is literally zero: just type Bing instead of Google.

If this is true, why does Google pay Apple billions/year and Mozilla millions/year to make Google the default search? You could be saving that money!

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#195

Post by fireflash38 »

lolinder wrote: post #127
siliconc0w wrote: post #54

It's hard to tell if it's Google's dominance causing search to suck or just the web ecosystem naturally optimizing for clicks. I will say most queries with even vaguely commercial intent do seem to get the max or nearly a full page of sponsored links. I don't recall what it was like years ago but I'm pretty sure it is worse. I also think it's pretty clear the platform take-rate needs to be generally lowered across th…

Kagi stands to me as proof that search can be better if it isn't run by an ad company. Kagi deliberately downranks sites that are loaded with ads and trackers, and the quality of their results is much higher, with much less SEO blogspam. Unsurprisingly, having a high concentration of ads and trackers is highly correlated with having content that is intended to maximize views rather than provide utility. Google has a…

How does kagi do with "corporate blogspam" - things like tutorials, guides, intros, etc created by a company as a funnel for conversions.

You know, things like the fusionauth OAuth guides (not trying to call them out).

I ask because it's a weird area where it can be shit and predatory, or a general good thing.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#196

Post by saalweachter »

lordnacho wrote: post #181
halflings wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Banning anti-competitive behavior (which is what antitrust laws are for in the first place). For instance: a company actively blocking competition (e.g. coffee machine manufacturers that make it impossible for people to buy pods from another brand). Again, I am probably biased here, but I don't see much anti-competitive behaviour in the search engine space. If people have a clear superior alternative to Google, then…

What about buying the default search from Apple? Maybe I'm remembering it wrong but I seem to recall they pay a lot of money for that.

What outcome are you hoping for here? Google can't pay to be the default search engine on a browser, no one can pay to be the default search engine on a browser, no one can be the default search engine on a browser, or just Google can't be the default search engine on a browser?

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#197

Post by bogwog »

jonhohle wrote: post #172
bogwog wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple made better chips than Qualcomm because Qualcomm is a monopolist, and thus doesn’t need to actually compete. The moment a competitor sprung up, they got their ass kicked. Yes, no other company but Apple could have pulled that off, but that’s only because Apple themselves are a monopolist with the market power to fight another monopolist. That’s not a good thing. The solution to monopolies isn’t more monopolies.…

I ask this every time it comes up, but what exactly does Apple have a monopoly in? They don’t control majority of anything in any category that they participate in. They are a major purchaser of high end fab processes, but that doesn’t allow them to control PC, phone, steaming, messaging, audio, home integration, or any other market. They are one of the most vertically integrated large companies, but they are allowed…

These types of discussions on this site are pointless. I can tell that no matter what I say, you’re going to end up moving the goal posts. Why do I know this? Because you non sarcastically are trying to say that Apple doesn’t have a monopoly. The amount of mental gymnastics is takes to frame it that way is only possible if someone cares more about defending the honor of their favorite megacorp than finding any kind of truth.

And if I’m completely wrong about you, then I apologize. My patience for these internet arguments isn’t what it used to be. To answer your question, there are no doubt thousands of comments on this website about that topic. Ignore the ones that seem to come from Apple fanboys, and you’ll find the right answers.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#198

Post by scyzoryk_xyz »

huitzitziltzin wrote: post #187

I appreciate the passion Matt Stoller brings to antitrust issues but his analyses are not good on the economics, to say the very least. I agree that some of google’s conduct is very questionable. It’s not obvious to me that paying to be the default search product is pro-competitive. On the other hand, the case that Google is going to make (and which I think is going to be really hard for the government to overcome) i…

Look, I’m not informed or an expert here, but if it’s being given away for free, then the search itself is not the “product”. The way I understand it, Google’s monopoly is over the ad market.

Stoller wrote a book on the subject which I never properly got through in its entirety, but it included a deep dive on what a monopoly is. You are correct - market share is not an anti-trust violation in it’s own. My assumption is that they will be arguing over whether Google is exercising its total control over the system to prevent competition from emerging, and using that control to extract all the value for itself. All while crippling functionality for the customers, not us search engine users in this case - but the advertisers.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#199

Post by growingentropy »

waithuh wrote: post #165
growingentropy wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://fossbytes.com/apple-data-collection-explained/ "Now that we’ve established that Apple collects and uses your data to serve ads, does it sell your data too? Turns out the answer is No, Apple doesn’t sell your data to third-party advertisers. The Cupertino giant possesses the exclusive rights of showing you ads on the App Store and other apps."

ah, yeah i kind of consider that as data selling anyways. Not outright selling, you are right there. Selling in bulk would be dumb for these companies when they have ad networks in place, though. Its like the DRM for ads.

Fair points all around.

And by the way? I'm an android fan. Though Apple is more secure in some ways, I would much rather have control over my device.

Re: The antitrust trial against Google is starting in September

#200

Post by raincole »

hgs3 wrote: post #96

Antitrust laws are too reactive. We need proactive laws that break up companies if they grow beyond a certain size criteria. Ideally, the criteria would be aggressive enough to kill large corporations leaving behind only small to medium-sized businesses. The result would be markets with increased competition, more innovation, lower prices, more options for employment and self-employment, and the elimination of Big Co…

Yeah and other countries won't follow suit. Congrats, you yield all the economics of scale to China. What now? "Export" the US's domestic laws to other countries like it always does?
Post reply on HN