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

361–370 of 383 posts

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#361

Post by bigyabai »

anon84873628 wrote: post #324
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…

Then why is the DOJ bringing the anti-trust cases in the first place? You think it's all one big conspiracy with the judges so they can save face with consumers? This litigation was initiated under the Biden admin and not withdrawn by Trump.

Because winning an anti-trust case sets a much larger precedent than having no case at all. Closing the case can block repeat litigation on the same grounds.

If you were Meta, for example, you would much rather be investigated by a corrupt administration than gamble on a future administration being nice. You might even make political donations to this end, and curry favor with the politicians to steer into the outcome you want. Like how Apple was able to escalate foreign App Store litigation to a presidential flamewar, all because Tim Cook bet on the right political cards. We see the same partisan cake-cutting with AI firms, as a way to punish Anthropic for not kissing ass hard enough.

The natural response to a grassroots demand for regulation is to invest your money against it. If Microsoft could avoid a breakup, why can't Google? Why not Apple? What if they're all for sale, like the Catholic Church selling indulgences?

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#362

Post by bigyabai »

jen20 wrote: post #264
gambiting wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She's laugh at him and disconnect. She might not know where the space bar is but she's not an idiot.

Good for her - MANY people fall for these scams, however.

The internet is full of scams. If you desensitize someone to that reality, then you better disable Safari access, iMessage, calls and FaceTime for their own good.

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#363

Post by jen20 »

bigyabai wrote: post #362
jen20 wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good for her - MANY people fall for these scams, however.

The internet is full of scams. If you desensitize someone to that reality, then you better disable Safari access, iMessage, calls and FaceTime for their own good.

Indeed, it would be a good idea for iOS to have a mode for the elderly that is almost exactly like that (similar to child mode, and for similar reasons).

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#364

Post by alexashka »

bigyabai wrote: post #360
alexashka wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not getting it. There is no 'we', there is no 'America'. These are propaganda terms. When you use them, you bolster the people who mindlessly repeat slogans and frustrate those who don't. It's a lose-lose.

My point was to relate the American POV of the judge with the America-optimistic POV of the parent comment. Using "we" and "America" in that context is perfectly clarifying, I'm not beholden to pivot to your pet nitpick.

You're not beholden to make any effort to understand me or anyone else, that's a given.

Here is what an LLM thinks about what you've done:

> The “we” is doing a lot of rhetorical work: it turns what could have been stated as “the U.S. government doesn't openly admit this” into the much broader and more dramatic “we Americans are collectively unwilling to admit it.”

I hope that helps. Or is the LLM also nitpicking and failing to understand your 'perfectly clarifying' remarks? Feel free to copy paste and ask an LLM yourself, all I did was ask it 'who is the 'we' referring to?' and copy pasted original parent and your reply.

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#365

Post by eldaisfish »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #338
eldaisfish wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what i personally find most insightful about this website is how the techbro culture will do anything except consider the needs of the many. why bother with good transit when we can automate cars? why bother with copyright when we can just steal content at a scale that few can comprehend.

The “needs”, or rather revealed preferences of many, is to live in detached single family homes on minimum 3,000 sq ft lots, with space for personal car storage. There is no way public transit works in that kind of non dense living arrangement. Do you have data to show Americans want to live in Manhattan/Tokyo style or even European style 4 story apartment/shared wall buildings? Population trends in the US show me th…

You are not a transport planner and it shows.

People in the US don’t magically “want” giant pickup trucks and pedestrian killing SUVs. They want cheap and practical vehicles, neither of which are available in large quantities. Notice how the advertising for pickups works? Straight, white, rural men in jeans telling you how your expensive pickup can drive off road? And then you read the manual and warranty where that exact usage is either forbidden or discouraged.

Same with the suburbs. Those we designed and pushed by the car lobby and the US made it illegal or very unprofitable to build any alternatives

Where is your data showing that people “prefer” this?

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#366

Post by lotsofpulp »

eldaisfish wrote: post #365
lotsofpulp wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The “needs”, or rather revealed preferences of many, is to live in detached single family homes on minimum 3,000 sq ft lots, with space for personal car storage. There is no way public transit works in that kind of non dense living arrangement. Do you have data to show Americans want to live in Manhattan/Tokyo style or even European style 4 story apartment/shared wall buildings? Population trends in the US show me th…

You are not a transport planner and it shows. People in the US don’t magically “want” giant pickup trucks and pedestrian killing SUVs. They want cheap and practical vehicles, neither of which are available in large quantities. Notice how the advertising for pickups works? Straight, white, rural men in jeans telling you how your expensive pickup can drive off road? And then you read the manual and warranty where that…

My data is the far lower prices for equivalent sized townhouses (homes that share walls) compared to detached single family houses, the increasing volumes of larger vehicles sold over smaller vehicles, and higher proportions of children in suburban areas compared to urban areas.

People like space, people like choosing who to share space with, and people like feeling more powerful (sitting higher up in bigger vehicles).

In my area, Zillow shows sold home prices for comparable townhomes vs detached SFH at roughly 30% lower price per square foot. People are willing to pay a couple hundred thousand dollars to not share walls.

>Those we designed and pushed by the car lobby and the US made it illegal or very unprofitable to build any alternatives

The US (federal government) didn't make it illegal or unprofitable to build more dense housing.

Local city and county level voters made it illegal and unprofitable, because more dense housing means poorer people, and poorer people means schools with kids who have poorer parents, which typically means a peer group that may not perform as well.

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#367

Post by thrance »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #337
thrance wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can change the details of the numbers game that is played every 4 years, but that won't solve the structural issues. I live in France, in any given election we have between 10 and 15 candidates from as many parties. Yet, we're still ruled by corporate interests. The media makes sure to qualify any candidate threatening the interests of capital as a "dangerous extremist", while "pro-business" candidates receive th…

All true, but at least in France those in power who commit serious corruption might go to actual jail; there's no way a US current or former president would face what Sarkozy did

Sarkozy got like 4 days in jail total, for taking money from an actual terrorist, and then helping them (among other heinous acts). And the entire media circus was behind him during this "ordeal", complaining about how unjust and unfair it was for this piece of shit to face any justice.

It's not quite as bad as in the US yet, but it's getting there. Media is consolidating in fewer and fewer hands, populists are getting bolder and more shameless, the left is demonized, etc. Same disease, same symptoms, same outcomes.

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#368

Post by fpoling »

Nasrudith wrote: post #334
fpoling wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A progressive tax on the size of the company can do this.

And to what end does discouraging scaling in an industrial economy serve? Corporations don't grow huge for the fun of it.

After certain size benefits of hyperscale do not compensate for the harm done to society.

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#369

Post by insane_dreamer »

thrance wrote: post #367
insane_dreamer wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All true, but at least in France those in power who commit serious corruption might go to actual jail; there's no way a US current or former president would face what Sarkozy did

Sarkozy got like 4 days in jail total, for taking money from an actual terrorist, and then helping them (among other heinous acts). And the entire media circus was behind him during this "ordeal", complaining about how unjust and unfair it was for this piece of shit to face any justice. It's not quite as bad as in the US yet, but it's getting there. Media is consolidating in fewer and fewer hands, populists are getti…

but Trump tried to overturn an election, not only got zero jail time but got re-elected and SCOTUS issued him a "do whatever you want while president" card, and so now what would have been a "huge corruption scandal" in the past is just routine

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#370

Post by softjobs »

briandear wrote: post #282
schmidtleonard wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Progressive corporate taxation could make it happen for reasons other than dodging the ghosts of chemical sins past!

Can we stop with taxing everything you don’t like? Taxes should be equal and used to fund the government, not as tools to make people do things you like.

What type of taxes, state or federal? Because federal taxes do NOT fund federal spending.

https://mmt101.substack.com/p/an-explanation-of-why-taxes-do...

Post reply on HN