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

371–380 of 383 posts

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#371

Post by mrandish »

kdidjwirjekej wrote: post #336
rkagerer wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for your thoughtful and eloquently crafted comment.

Yep. Almost sounded like a human being. Very close to reaching a state of readability and ease of comprehension that humans tend to go for. I myself like to speak normally and actually say things, but I guess going round in circles and ultimately saying nothing is also a valid strategy…

There was quite literally zero LLM in my response. Um, being a good writer and having a decent vocabulary isn't a crime?

According to Pangram and GPTZero, what I wrote isn't AI. Maybe your AI detector isn't working as well as you think it is. Both my account and the GP are over 10 years old with >10,000 karma while your account was made minutes before your post and has zero karma.

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#372

Post by vinetnova »

alexashka wrote: post #364
bigyabai wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[flagged]

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#373

Post by cryptonector »

xahrepap wrote: post #113

Slightly tangential thought: My belief is: legislation needs to either make it just as hard to merge two companies as it is to unmerge them, or make it just as easy to unmerge two companies as it is to merge them. It's insane to me that for how often companies merge and cause competition issues, we effectively never see the opposite happen. I know there's a ceremonial approval for merging two companies (at least in t…

> My belief is: legislation needs to either make it just as hard to merge two companies as it is to unmerge them, or make it just as easy to unmerge two companies as it is to merge them.

Easy for companies to merge, and... who is going to "unmerge" them when they don't want to? It is easy for them to split up if they want to you know, it's just: they don't want to.

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#374

Post by tovej »

opo wrote: post #359
tovej wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's crazy to get downvotes for this matter of fact, good faith, truthful comment. What's going on, HN?

Vague assertions with no evidence don't really help the discussion. If someone is going to assert such a strong claim like "We have more than enough taxes on working people and not enough on the wealthiest classes.", they really need to at least define what they mean by "working people" and "wealthiest classes" and then give some evidence to show that "taxes are disproportionately applied" between these groups. (You…

It's not vague at all.

Wealth inequality in the US is so bad that the statement is true with pretty much any reasonable interpretation.

The top quantiles of the population (10%, 1%, 0.1%, billionaires) are paying less taxes than they should in a fair system; and that statement becomes increasingly illustrative of the situation the smaller and richer the quantile you choose is.

The fact that wealth inequality is _accellerating_ should be enough to tell you that the taxation system is unfair towards the poorer end.

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#375

Post by thrance »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #369
thrance wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Reread the second paragraph of my previous comment. It's a process, of which the US are further along. But eventually, the entire west will go that path.

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#377

Post by anon84873628 »

bigyabai wrote: post #361
anon84873628 wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 outcom…

This case against Google was initiated under Biden, and generally celebrated at the time. For your theory to be correct you need to explain how the DOJ brought a deliberately flawed case or weakened it at some point. I haven't read anyone suggesting anything like that.

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#378

Post by pstuart »

GJim wrote: post #317
pstuart wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get your point. In the US at least there's less of a paradox of choice. The key problem is that most people don't want to pay attention to any of it because it's either depressing or just not within there range of interests. Add to that the fact that most people vote based on their emotions and those are stupid simple to manipulate on the Right: anger at immigrants and "others" works all the time. Democracy is the…

> it would be nice if the electorate were actually properly informed when they vote Which is why a balanced free press is vital for democracy. Yet the USA abandoned its 'fairness doctrine' in broadcast media some decades ago.

Broadcast media is boomer stuff (disclaimer: I am technically a boomer). I expect its relevance to fade. That said, the failure to prevent media aggregation (e.g., Sinclair et al) is also a betrayal to the people.

As a boomer, I recognize the value of having constrained media choices: it was a unifying factor albeit at the price of milquetoast and "establishment" programming. Everything has a price...

The fairness doctrine should have been employed when Rush Limbaugh started his hate speech career that aimed to literally demonize half the population.

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#379

Post by jeanloolz »

xahrepap wrote: post #113

Slightly tangential thought: My belief is: legislation needs to either make it just as hard to merge two companies as it is to unmerge them, or make it just as easy to unmerge two companies as it is to merge them. It's insane to me that for how often companies merge and cause competition issues, we effectively never see the opposite happen. I know there's a ceremonial approval for merging two companies (at least in t…

Very often a demerge comes before an acquisition. Example, a fund could buy a huge group/conglomerate made of various companies, and then sell each companies separately. Each company sold is merged to another group but demerged from its original group.

Re: Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

#380

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

billfor wrote: post #245
mpalczewski wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The principal is it's OK if a democrat does it. For example: It's OK to rename something named after a Republican president who was shot (Mt Mckinley). It's not OK to rename or change something about a Democratic president who was shot (ie. The Kennedy Center).

Man, give me an effing break, do you honestly believe that is the correct analogy?

As another commenter said, Obama was reverting a previous name change - he didn't change the name to "Mt. Obama and McKinley" and paint the whole thing gold.

Post reply on HN