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

Google says it doesn't monopolize digital ad market – senators don't buy it

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 229 posts

Re: Google says it doesn't monopolize digital ad market – senators don't buy it

#111

Post by manigandham »

lawrenceyan wrote: post #106
manigandham wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what happened. The question was asking why a child saw a family member in an ad while playing a game. The Congressman just held up an iPhone while asking but it had nothing to do with the hardware. Of course there are numerous factors that may have contributed to the ad (and maybe Google wasn't involved) but they went with the smartass answer and the media ran with that narrative instead. It's not the grea…

Watched the video, and there was just a random guy dressed up with a mustache and top hat sitting behind the camera during the entire hearing?

Yes. He shows up in many hearings.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/monopoly-m...

Re: Google says it doesn't monopolize digital ad market – senators don't buy it

#112

Post by Nasrudith »

tannhaeuser wrote: post #36
KorematsuFred wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every company is a monopoly based on how you define the market. Why should we focus only on online ads ? Why not look at the entire ad spend and then see what % is controlled by Google ? By some logic the coffee shop in my block has a monopoly on coffee if their market is the block. They are irrelevant if you look at the entire city.

That's too relativistic. If only AMZN, GOOG, and FB gain during coronavirus, this clearly means there's need for action considering the perspective of online-only advertising going forward. Especially if the success of TikTok as the only competitor in the space has resulted in government influence.

That sounds like an attempt to maintain "never my fault" consistency akin to stating we need to beat all people at traffic stops instead of admitting that beating people at traffic stops to look good on crime in the first place was criminally wrong.

Re: Google says it doesn't monopolize digital ad market – senators don't buy it

#113

Post by Nasrudith »

justaguyhere wrote: post #88
amelius wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just ban targeted advertising, but allow websites that ask the user to tell about themselves in order to get tailored product recommendations.

Or educate users to pay for quality and make quality websites/products so we don't have to depend on advertising. This would be insanely difficult to pull off, but it is at least worth a try. The incumbents have trained users to expect everything on the internet for free. People think they pay $75 (or whatever their internet connection costs) and that should cover everything - news, search, email... How many people e…

That sounds like you are asking the customer to serve the market instead of the market to serve the customer.

Re: Google says it doesn't monopolize digital ad market – senators don't buy it

#114

Post by Nasrudith »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #58
adrianN wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any system in which network effects and winner-takes-all exist result in centralization and monopoly. I don't think you could design the Internet differently to avoid this.

The winner-takes-all positive feedback loop exists because social networks are held in silos built on IP regulations. So I guess that's another reason the existing concept of intellectual property needs to be torn down and rebuilt. Would winner-take-all effect be so strong if all user-provided data was owned by users , and data processors (like social network) were forced to implement protocols allowing for easy and…

If they depend upon another entity for doing the task they aren't competitors in the first place. That is like calling me a competitor to Exxon Mobile because I can get gas in my car at a gas station.

The data siloing concept doesn't make any sense on a networking and design level in the first place. It would call for the user to implement all data desired by the service in their form and pass it back and forth - which in practice would involve a lot of redundant dataschelping, especialally if everything was designed to be stateless by making websites not store any data permanently! Indeed the only point to the design is as a passive aggressive way to tell them to "fuck off, if I wanted you to have it I would give it to you".

On a technical level it is a bad reinvention/implementation of cookies and using them to store all state essentially.

Re: Google says it doesn't monopolize digital ad market – senators don't buy it

#115

Post by quest88 »

throwaway_kufu wrote: post #66

What so many people fail to realize about these issues vis-a-vis Google, it’s not so much the issues of Google having a monopoly or not on the ad market...in either case google is a dominant market incumbent that uses its position (in this case web traffic, data and online ad platform) to unfairly compete and stifle competition. Google has often used data acquired through their market position to start subsidiaries t…

Can you point out any specific examples, and why Google would forgo that ad money?

Re: Google says it doesn't monopolize digital ad market – senators don't buy it

#116

Post by Klinky »

doukdouk wrote: post #70
throwaway_kufu wrote: post #66

What so many people fail to realize about these issues vis-a-vis Google, it’s not so much the issues of Google having a monopoly or not on the ad market...in either case google is a dominant market incumbent that uses its position (in this case web traffic, data and online ad platform) to unfairly compete and stifle competition. Google has often used data acquired through their market position to start subsidiaries t…

Words get abused a lot, and for some of them, they do not have a clear-cut, universally agreed upon meaning. "Monopoly" is one of such words (others candidate include: freedom, democracy, justice). When random person X complains about, say, Google having a monopoly, there are two possibilities: - Person X means something along "Google has a dominant market position and abuses its power", slightly abusing the meaning…

People need to use the words antitrust or anticompetitive more often, just because you could claim there are competitors, doesn't mean the market is fair to competition or consumers.

Re: Google says it doesn't monopolize digital ad market – senators don't buy it

#117

Post by quest88 »

blippage wrote: post #78

Here's a simple heuristic for determining if a company has a monopoly: if they say that they have a monopoly, then they don't; if they say that they don't, then they do. Original author unknown.

My app with 0 customers is not a monopoly. Am I now a monopoly?

Re: Google says it doesn't monopolize digital ad market – senators don't buy it

#118

Post by [deleted] »

throwaway_kufu wrote: post #66

What so many people fail to realize about these issues vis-a-vis Google, it’s not so much the issues of Google having a monopoly or not on the ad market...in either case google is a dominant market incumbent that uses its position (in this case web traffic, data and online ad platform) to unfairly compete and stifle competition. Google has often used data acquired through their market position to start subsidiaries t…

[deleted]

Re: Google says it doesn't monopolize digital ad market – senators don't buy it

#119

Post by wasdfff »

mondoshawan wrote: post #16
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> most of those senators are not the holders of truth when it comes to technology They don’t have to be. Their staffers do. I’ve worked with a number of staffers on these questions for about three years now. They’re some of the smartest people I’ve worked with in my career, which has centred around Wall Street and Silicon Valley.

So why aren't they the senators instead of the morons they back?

The staffer is a specialist. Intimate knowledge of highway infrastructure, or technology issues alone do not make a senator. A senator is someone who manages a small cabal of specialist experts who collectively hold more knowledge than any one head could ever fit. The job can’t be done by one person, its a coordinated team effort.

Re: Google says it doesn't monopolize digital ad market – senators don't buy it

#120

Post by ntsplnkv2 »

eqtn wrote: post #52

make targeted advertising opt in. Make the opt in scary like how android enables the installation of apk's from unknown sources.

Advertising is a huge reason why the US economy keeps on churning. I think there could be several knock on effects to something like this, even though in principle I agree.
Post reply on HN