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

441–450 of 510 posts

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

#441

Post by DrillShopper »

CivBase wrote: post #168
DrillShopper wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something is wet when it is covered in water, so how can water be wet? It's just water.

Because unless you're talking about a single molecule of water, water is always covered in more water. But that's beside the point. Practically speaking, a person considers something "wet" if contacting it will make them wet. If a person contacts water, they will become wet. It's not about the technical definition of "wet" - it's about the practical implication of the word and the effect it has on people and things a…

I feel like I should have added a /s at the end of my original post

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

#442

Post by Henchman21 »

imiric wrote: post #323
Henchman21 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were really smart guys. But smart guys don’t stand a chance in the face of all that money because it attracts people who know how to manipulate and control smart people . Smart people think they’re at the top of the totem pole. But really its those without ethics who sit at the top in our society. This is a conundrum humanity must address if we’re to survive over the long term, IMO.

You're implying that smart people are somehow inherently ethical, but were manipulated by unethical (and less smart?) people. Whereas some of the least ethical people in history were also very smart. Intelligence is practically a requirement for truly abhorrent behavior. Greed is humanity's greatest weakness. When faced with the opportunity of unimaginable wealth, most people would sacrifice their ethics and morals,…

Well, I can see where you get that from what I wrote. I didn’t mean it quite like that, so allow me to clarify:

I don’t think they are inherently ethical, but they were young and naive with good intentions (Do No Evil, and all that). The position they put forward is ethical. But that youthful naivety is what the less-ethical (though still quite intelligent, as you point out) take advantage of.

Further, again as you said, greed is at the root of it.

Hopefully that clarifies my point?

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

#443

Post by MichaelZuo »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #428
MichaelZuo wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does your individual opinion matter to Google (or advertisers or their markets) then? It’s probably not even possible for decision makers to discern it from noise.

My individual opinion is (presumably) not unique. They also absolutely can tell who is a decision maker: around 2015, people used to serve facebook ads specifically to VCs to get investment in their startups. I'm sure targeting has only improved.

This doesn’t make sense as a reply, it’s not relevant how many others share your opinion, because it’s not aggregations of people replying to each other on HN, but specific users.

Each user’s comment has to stand up under its own weight so to speak

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

#444

Post by astonex »

nixpulvis wrote: post #108

I would love to see a company compete in the ad space with the goal of making ads less intrusive . If ads didn't attack me and cause the viewport to jump and become obscured while reading, my first impression with the products would be better, and the sites the ads are on would get more viewership. Quality ads would be at a huge premium.

You might be interested in The Trade Desk and their Sellers and Publishers 500. It focuses on only quality content and quality ads. https://www.thetradedesk.com/resources/what-is-sellers-publi...

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

#445

Post by carlosjobim »

CPLX wrote: post #427
carlosjobim wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dislike Google more than most and would never buy nor sell ads with them, but they have no monopoly on advertising You’re commenting on an article with the title “Google is illegally monopolizing” which is reporting on the official verdict of a federal trial where Google was well represented and lost.

Monopoly is a real word with a real meaning. It doesn't matter what any kind of judge "decides", he does not have the authority to change the meanings of words according to his humors. Google might be doing anti-competitive or fraudulent actions, but let's use the proper terms in the proper places.

Just like there is a difference between theft, burglary and robbery.

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

#446

Post by pclmulqdq »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #443
pclmulqdq wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My individual opinion is (presumably) not unique. They also absolutely can tell who is a decision maker: around 2015, people used to serve facebook ads specifically to VCs to get investment in their startups. I'm sure targeting has only improved.

This doesn’t make sense as a reply, it’s not relevant how many others share your opinion, because it’s not aggregations of people replying to each other on HN, but specific users. Each user’s comment has to stand up under its own weight so to speak

Cool, yours is as irrelevant as mine. The original point stands, though: not everyone benefits from better ad targeting.

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

#447

Post by troupo »

LunaSea wrote: post #435
troupo wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Those extraordinary claims need some extraordinary evidence In a comment elsewhere in the discussion: accuracy of targeting is worse than random sampling https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43719816 2. Ads have existed for as long as commerce existed. Google became a trillion dollar ad behemoth before it started collected everyone's data by simply offering contextual ads. Literally nothing in the ads business req…

> In a comment elsewhere in the discussion: accuracy of targeting is worse than random sampling https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43719816 I could provide a long answer but the gist of it is that the study is flawed. Among the reasons, they don't differentiate desktop and mobile traffic which is a massive measurement problem. They also use Nielsen DAR which is in itself a heuristic method of determining what age a…

> I could provide a long answer but the gist of it is that the study is flawed.

Show me a non-flawed study that shows you need vast amounts of user data and tracking, for each user, throughout their lifetime to deliver ads

> No, it didn't.

Yes, yes it did. The skyrocketing revenue is attributable to increased internet usage across the globe, and Google outright owning a large chunk of it.

> It does because contextual advertisement does not provide enough volumes and lower performance

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

> Example:

Example: if you collect and sell vast amounts of sensitive user data without user's consent, and the outcome is indistinguishable from random noise, are you more effective?

Example: if targeted ads are found to be somewhat more effective than contextual ads, is the lifelong invasive tracking of every user action a preferred tradeoff?

(It's quite telling how people defending targeted advertising never address the elephant in the room)

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

#448

Post by LunaSea »

troupo wrote: post #447
LunaSea wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In a comment elsewhere in the discussion: accuracy of targeting is worse than random sampling https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43719816 I could provide a long answer but the gist of it is that the study is flawed. Among the reasons, they don't differentiate desktop and mobile traffic which is a massive measurement problem. They also use Nielsen DAR which is in itself a heuristic method of determining what age a…

> I could provide a long answer but the gist of it is that the study is flawed. Show me a non-flawed study that shows you need vast amounts of user data and tracking, for each user, throughout their lifetime to deliver ads > No, it didn't. Yes, yes it did. The skyrocketing revenue is attributable to increased internet usage across the globe, and Google outright owning a large chunk of it. > It does because contextual…

> Yes, yes it did. The skyrocketing revenue is attributable to increased internet usage across the globe, and Google outright owning a large chunk of it.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

> Example: if you collect and sell vast amounts of sensitive user data without user's consent

The users do give consent and this is handled by Consent Management Platforms and passed in the programmatic advertisement auction chain in the form of TC strings.

The fact that you don't know this is also quite telling.

> [...] and the outcome is indistinguishable from random noise, are you more effective?

But it isn't, and if you are making claims, please provided sources.

Why would brands and agencies pay additional fees for data if they would provide no uplift?

> Example: if targeted ads are found to be somewhat more effective than contextual ads, is the lifelong invasive tracking of every user action a preferred tradeoff?

Are users prepared to pay for the difference?

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

#449

Post by azemetre »

fallingknife wrote: post #296
azemetre wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes there is no right to access an advertising market for Google, luckily the government agrees they are an illegal monopoly. Hopefully the ramifications are massive and company breaking.

If that happens this will do nothing for you. You will go through some other company where you can't talk to a human.

That’s fine. As long as Google is broken up. I doubt your scenario will happen either, we all saw the hundreds of billions in investor value that occurred when AT&T was broken up.

Breaking up Google will help everyone everywhere.

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

#450

Post by MichaelZuo »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #446
MichaelZuo wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn’t make sense as a reply, it’s not relevant how many others share your opinion, because it’s not aggregations of people replying to each other on HN, but specific users. Each user’s comment has to stand up under its own weight so to speak

Cool, yours is as irrelevant as mine. The original point stands, though: not everyone benefits from better ad targeting.

> Cool, yours is as irrelevant as mine.

So then why did you reply if you already knew your comment and the rest of the comment chain was irrelevant?

Post reply on HN