Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business • Hacker News Board

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#81

Post by shakna » Wed, Sep 02, 2026, 9:49 PM UTC

strictnein wrote: post #40

shakna wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What ruling? It isn't released yet. We have declining to breakup, based on behavioral remedies, and zero details.

Kind of my point. How does one know something is a miscarriage of justice if you haven't read the ruling? Because you don't like the outcome?

Accepting behavioural changes, is the same stink of the last five decades.

I would like to wait for my own judgement... But someone reacting to the same, "We're sorry", that has been so common it became a South Park meme? They have had no evidence, probably in their lifetime, that government has not simply sold out to private enterprise. There is zero reason to be mad at them.

People react to actions. The actions thus far... Do not encourage any of kind of trust. Taking time to redact the ruling, is not an encpuragement to trust.

Sure. Wait for a ruling. Re-evaluate when it releases, too.

But reacting to the exact same pile shit they've seen everytime... Why blame them?

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#82

Post by dragontamer » Wed, Sep 02, 2026, 9:49 PM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #75

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 incr…

Yeah it's meaningless to fight. Except not really. If the powers that be are corrupt we can simply keep calling it Lake Ontario across the board, and use the difference to find who is or isn't on my side on that issue.

The only people calling it Gulf of America or Lake America are hardcore MAGATs in my social circle. Even former Trump voters in my social circle are annoyed and not using the new names. So it's an effective way to figure out who is or isn't going along with the Administration today.

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#83

Post by JMiao » Wed, Sep 02, 2026, 9:50 PM UTC

strictnein wrote: post #9

jordanb wrote: post #2

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

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.

we got rick grimes over here walking into atlanta

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#84

Post by CincinnatiMan » Wed, Sep 02, 2026, 9:50 PM UTC

Georgelemental wrote: post #63

CincinnatiMan wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I kinda somewhat reluctantly agree with you, and I think other commenters are missing the point that breaking up Google may allow non-US competitors to rise up and take Google's place on the world stage. Thus, breaking them up is not in the national interest of the US.

As long as there are many competitors, that's better than a monopoly, even if some of the competitors are foreign. Powerful monopolists restricting our freedoms is not in the interest of Americans long-term.

> As long as there are many competitors, that's better than a monopoly, even if some of the competitors are foreign

How do you prevent another monopoly from forming from a different country than your own?

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#85

Post by tdb7893 » Wed, Sep 02, 2026, 9:51 PM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #75

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 incr…

Democracy works best as a diffuse institution and is more than just voting. People are supposed to have rights and power themselves and I want them to try to make things better (whether I agree with them or not) and "corporations" are just groups of people. Needing to just go with the government, especially on something so clearly within their rights, is counter to the ideals of the system.

I can understand Google somewhat here (if I was running a business I wouldn't be happy wading into a political issue like this) but the idea that they are above criticism for just falling in line still doesn't resonate with me.

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#86

Post by bsimpson » Wed, Sep 02, 2026, 9:56 PM UTC

bunderbunder wrote: post #64

More information on the specific remedies in the USDOJ announcement: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-wins-signi... Sounds like it's not nothing, but also not much.

> said Attorney General Pamela Bondi.

That must have been in drafts for a while.

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#87

Post by xp84 » Wed, Sep 02, 2026, 9:57 PM UTC

> Google’s ad tech business brought in $30 billion last year, or about 8 percent of the revenue for its parent company, Alphabet. Its ad tech revenue has declined for 16 straight quarters, and analysts estimate it accounts for less than 1 percent of the company’s profit... “This is a business no one cares about"

Can someone closer to GOOG explain this? The phrase "ad tech" seems to have a very specific meaning here. Does this 1% include all advertising around the Web? Basically all ad revenue outside of Google's own properties? The number is surprisingly low.

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#88

Post by xp84 » Wed, Sep 02, 2026, 9:58 PM UTC

JMiao wrote: post #78

bigyabai wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The acronym gets awkward if we don't, though

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#89

Post by mpalczewski » Wed, Sep 02, 2026, 9:59 PM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #75

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 incr…

I do wonder how many people that criticize the renaming, were criticizing Obama when he rename Mt McKinley. What are the principles here? Or is it just names I like vs names I don't like.

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#90

Post by mpalczewski » Wed, Sep 02, 2026, 10:03 PM UTC

webdood90 wrote: post #73

strictnein wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

A legitimately rule based legal system is far more beneficial than one that takes sides based on the taste of the day. beneficial for everyone involved. If you want to write "Stan for billionaires", without any sort of reasoning, well, that says more about you.