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

Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 510 posts

Re: Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules

#261

Post by carlosjobim »

Hasu wrote: post #135
carlosjobim wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you made your business become completely dependent on a third party, you were already a failure and shouldn't have a business. Being a successful businessman is not a right. It's competition.

I love it when my counterparty's breach of contract is my fault because I foolishly trusted that they would do what they said they would in exchange for my money. I'm sure you also believe that she was asking for it because she was wearing a short skirt and your dad was right to hit you because you wouldn't shut up.

Show me the contract where Google promises to bring web traffic to your business.

Re: Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules

#262

Post by carlosjobim »

afavour wrote: post #184
carlosjobim wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you made your business become completely dependent on a third party, you were already a failure and shouldn't have a business. Being a successful businessman is not a right. It's competition.

Isn't one of the specific complaints about monopolies that it leaves you with no choice but to be dependent on the third party? If Google blocks my access to the only viable ad network do you really think it's reasonable to say I need to set up my own ad exchange?

Trillions of dollars are spent on advertising outside of Google. You can advertise in print, billboards, radio and television ads, Netflix, or on social media behemoths.

Hackers call every big business they do not like a "monopoly". What's next, Burger King is a monopoly? I dislike Google more than most and would never buy nor sell ads with them, but they have no monopoly on advertising.

Re: Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules

#263

Post by fallingknife »

matthest wrote: post #230
fallingknife wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really see how that's possible. They are prevented by law from charging more than 25% on top of what they pay out to medical providers. The problem is the providers who are represented by the AMA.

https://acdis.org/articles/news-ama-report-details-health-in...

This relies entirely on market concentration and doesn't even bother to address the legal cap on premiums enacted in the ACA. I expected it to be trash because it is written by people who have every incentive to try to blame insurance companies and I was correct.

Re: Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules

#264

Post by porridgeraisin »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #252
hamp95 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On what planet is a loss of 70% of the resources to the matching process between buyers and sellers "incredibly efficient"? One where the market maker is taking up the cost of providing a market. E.g. Steam takes a 30% cut for providing the infrastructure required to distribute games. Some people/companies can do it for less but it is the best option for a majority of sellers. If the market maker did not the seller…

> One where the market maker is taking up the cost of providing a market Does a landlord on a literal physical market take 30% of revenue? I find that unlikely. How did we arrive here, where supposedly ‘efficient’ digital marketplace is a form of rent higher than actually building physical rent, and expenses on wages and materials for a typical business?

Unfortunately a lot of economic activity in general today is just money-on-money financialism. It is all just gambling and rent seeking and dishonesty. These practices are whitewashed and given various names. The one for rent-seeking is "market making".

Ad platforms too are fundamentally about letting someone perceive ROI lesser than their real ROI, for your own benefit. For me, it falls under the same category as all of the above - zero productivity endeavours.

Maybe we should go back to the previous millenium and make usury illegal. Should fix all of these problems, albeit in a nuclear fashion.

Re: Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules

#265

Post by carlosjobim »

CPLX wrote: post #126
carlosjobim wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you made your business become completely dependent on a third party, you were already a failure and shouldn't have a business. Being a successful businessman is not a right. It's competition.

The reason monopolies are illegal is precisely because they force people to be completely dependent on a third party. Is a farmer "a failure who shouldn't have a business" if some asshole buys up every single railroad, port, and truck in the country he lives in?

No, but if he makes himself for example completely dependent on Monsanto, he shouldn't have a business, because he's in practice an employee with all the financial responsibilities of a business and none of the benefits of having a business. And none of the benefits of being an employee either.

If your business model is to make yourself completely dependent on a single third party, then you shouldn't have a business.

Re: Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules

#266

Post by lucb1e »

megaman821 wrote: post #38

I don't think this article explains it well. Google sells ad space on behalf of the publishers and also sells the ads on behalf of the advertisers. It also runs the auction that places the ads into the ad space. See this graphic https://images.app.goo.gl/ADx5xrAnWNicgoFu7 . Parts of this can definately be broken up without destroying Google.

There's some irony in having to click past a Google tracking wall to see the graphic you shared in this thread, especially when that graphic isn't actually Google's. It's from Gizmodo: https://gizmodo.com/app/uploads/2023/01/6371209cd0cce428b526... (contained in this article: https://gizmodo.com/google-lawsuit-justice-department-ads-an...)

Was looking over my mom's shoulder last week to see what site she was reading out some information from. It was "google.com" but looked like a third party website, probably this AMP thing? Google really is hijacking everything

Re: Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules

#267

Post by turtletontine »

Frieren wrote: post #202

This is necessary now, but it should have been done years back. Nowadays, many companies backed up by investors with very deep pockets are doing this in all markets: start to buy middle-man companies in a space, it does not matter which one, dominate the market thanks to monopolistic power. Screw the clients making them pay too much, screw the providers paying them too little. Go for the next market. Google does this…

| This should be impossible, because there are laws against it.

That’s what so remarkable: we have a robust system of antitrust laws in this country, they just haven’t been enforced in decades. Thank god the Biden admin started trying to use them again, and that Trump hasn’t stopped these cases in their tracks.

Re: Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules

#268

Post by afavour »

carlosjobim wrote: post #262
afavour wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't one of the specific complaints about monopolies that it leaves you with no choice but to be dependent on the third party? If Google blocks my access to the only viable ad network do you really think it's reasonable to say I need to set up my own ad exchange?

Trillions of dollars are spent on advertising outside of Google. You can advertise in print, billboards, radio and television ads, Netflix, or on social media behemoths. Hackers call every big business they do not like a "monopoly". What's next, Burger King is a monopoly? I dislike Google more than most and would never buy nor sell ads with them, but they have no monopoly on advertising.

I’m sorry, this perspective is absurd. I’m talking about a web site that shows ads. You’re suggesting they pivot to running off billboards? To creating TV shows?

> What’s next, Burger King is a monopoly?

I think this just illustrates that you’re not grasping the concept. Of course Burger King isn’t a monopoly. With my car when looking for a drive through dining experience I can go to McDonalds. Or Wendy’s. Or whatever. When operating a small to medium size web site that depends on advertising for revenue the viable alternatives to Google essentially don’t exist.

Re: Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules

#269

Post by porridgeraisin »

cornel_io wrote: post #229
tmtvl wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> * Identity providers who have lists of user IDs that belong to "high CTR" audiences (users more likely to click ads) > * Geo providers who tell the bidders where the User's location is so that they can target locally-focused advertisements to them > * User intent plugins, "abandoned cart" retargeting, product recommendation providers, etc. who look at user interaction events and build profiles of people who can be…

None of that seems at all user-hostile to me, it's literally all aimed at making sure what the user is shown is more likely to actually be useful to them. I guess this is a big and probably unbridgeable divide, some people think this sort of thing is obviously evil and others, like me, actually prefer it very strongly over a world where all advertising is untargeted but there is massively more of it because it's so m…

I'm on the other side of the divide from you.

However, mine and many other folks' position is not preferring untargeted intrusive annoying ads over targeted intrusive annoying ads. It's preferring almost zero ads with maybe the rare, non intrusive easily avoidable ad on certain appropriate websites[1]. That is why we aggressively use ad blockers and go to great lengths to avoid the status quo.

[1] a shopping website having a _single_ banner on the home page announcing an ongoing sale for HP laptops is OK. However, if I search for lenovo laptops and I see a HP laptop as the first "sponsored" result....(Looking at you amazon).

And about tracking, I absolutely don't want my librarian running to my travel agent telling him I recently looked up france travel guides. The digital equivalent of this happens daily to everybody. It's simply a no-no for me, there can never be a justification for it.

The fact is that if you ban these two classes of practices, the whole of ad tech comes crashing down. I hope everyday for this to happen.

Re: Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules

#270

Post by sidewndr46 »

cornel_io wrote: post #229
tmtvl wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> * Identity providers who have lists of user IDs that belong to "high CTR" audiences (users more likely to click ads) > * Geo providers who tell the bidders where the User's location is so that they can target locally-focused advertisements to them > * User intent plugins, "abandoned cart" retargeting, product recommendation providers, etc. who look at user interaction events and build profiles of people who can be…

None of that seems at all user-hostile to me, it's literally all aimed at making sure what the user is shown is more likely to actually be useful to them. I guess this is a big and probably unbridgeable divide, some people think this sort of thing is obviously evil and others, like me, actually prefer it very strongly over a world where all advertising is untargeted but there is massively more of it because it's so m…

"useful to them" - do I really need to know how much one day dental implants cost in 2025?
Post reply on HN