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

Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 383 posts

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#71

Post by j2kun »

jvolkman wrote: post #17
bitpush wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isnt that updated by some national database and google just pulls that data? Apparently Apple Maps will also get it in a few days, since they get the data from them as well.

Yes. We had the same comments about Gulf of America. Edit: I don't know that there's an actual database served up by the US Gov, but governments control the naming of these things within their own jurisdictions. All of the big mapping products have the ability to serve up different names based on where you're viewing from. And Apple just renamed: https://apnews.com/article/apple-lake-ontario-america-google...

It would be nice if Maps would prefer data from government DBs that have localized versions of foreign place name data (e.g., Germany's BKG) when available.

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#72

Post by ux266478 »

strictnein wrote: post #57
vasco wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What conspiracy mate? It's not so deep, I was curious if what he said was a lie due to the downvotes and found nice evidence for it. You don't find it convincing it's your choice, but the dude didn't pull it out of his ass.

The conspiracy that Google is protected on high because people have rotated between two giant employers. If you think it is "nice evidence", how many people should have moved between those two employers? And you made the claim that the rate likely drastically increased over the past 10 years. Based on what, exactly?

You think that giant employers being protected, especially when they align themselves with government interests of the day, is a conspiracy? Do you also think that suggesting economic producer interests are a high priority is a conspiracy? Or that corporations with contracts to the government are generally compliant with governmental requests?

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#73

Post by webdood90 »

strictnein wrote: post #55
mortoc wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's a stretch to see a systemic pattern of big tech avoiding consequences that leave the rest of us in the power of monopolies. Regardless of the content of this ruling, it's another brick in the wall.

A separate discussion for sure, but simply seeing a headline and declaring it an "incredible miscarriage of justice" seems a little far fetched. For example, many times the courts will point out that the laws need to be updated, which would be in the ruling. Or that a law as written is unconstitutional but it could be made so with some changes. That stuff doesn't make the headlines though, just the "Courts rules for/…

[flagged]

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#74

Post by kerblang »

I wonder if it would help to revoke patents that help google maintain its monopoly, assuming that's the case and it's doable by a judge/congress/someone?

What exactly is the nature of its monopoly that moots competition? I was of understanding that it's more than just ads on google search results, isn't it?

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#75

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

jordanb wrote: post #2

That "Lake America" is doing a hell of a lot of work for Google

To all the people pissed about the "Lake America" stuff: why in the actual fuck do you want Google of all organizations to be arbiter of geographical info, instead of federal institutions that are (at least nominally) operated under democratic principles?

Don't you understand the horror of what you're suggesting: "I want Google to impose it's own personal value judgments over the government's."

Yes, I think it's incredibly stupid, 3rd grader childlike to call this "Lake America". But the problem is not Google, the problem is the ass hats we (collectively, even if not you/me personally) voted for. The problem is especially with our Congressional reps who have just neutered themselves in service to this stupidity. And I get it, our federal institutions have definitely showed their frailty lately, but I can't fathom then why people think the proper solution is to give more decision-making authority to Google.

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#78

Post by JMiao »

bigyabai wrote: post #28
strictnein wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The judge was appointed by Clinton, so they've been in their role for decades now. It seems unlikely that someone who has served that long in her position would rule based on making the child in the White House happy.

To the contrary, the entire DOJ understands that FAANG and the three-letter-agencies are one revolving door. Any judge that attempts to defang Google's data collection may well run afoul of the American surveillance system, which this administration will fight tooth and nail to defend. Not very different from how federal protectionism keeps Apple's App Store centralized despite trillions of dollars in ostensible mark…

agree with you but including netflix is becoming hilarious

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#79

Post by mobelkh »

strictnein wrote: post #44
bigyabai wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The judge in this case put the final nail into Trumps slush fund. That's a very different, partisan effort. It's not bipartisan like the Patriot Act was, or domestic surveillance in-general. > Not everything is a conspiracy. You don't have some special insight into this. Not everything is as it seems. You can't meaningfully prove that the NSA sat on their hands in the 13 interceding years since Snowden. There's no…

> You can't meaningfully prove that the NSA sat on their hands in the 13 interceding years since Snowden. I mean, you're correct? It's impossible to prove a negative. > There's no evidence that US interventionism is on the straight-and-narrow now, you're wishcasting and calling it truth. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and all that. You're the ones making the extraordinary claims. The burden of pr…

i would argue, the NSA not being up to some bullshit is more unlikely, and thus has the burden of proof on it, to assume otherwise is to ignore history and basic incentives these orgs have.

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#80

Post by JMiao »

strictnein wrote: post #57
vasco wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What conspiracy mate? It's not so deep, I was curious if what he said was a lie due to the downvotes and found nice evidence for it. You don't find it convincing it's your choice, but the dude didn't pull it out of his ass.

The conspiracy that Google is protected on high because people have rotated between two giant employers. If you think it is "nice evidence", how many people should have moved between those two employers? And you made the claim that the rate likely drastically increased over the past 10 years. Based on what, exactly?

yes, such has been the reality for some time now. look at boeing
Post reply on HN