Look, I get it — the issues with Google, Facebook, Amazon. But I can’t help but think about how AT&T and other ISPs banded together to claim they shouldn’t be regulated because they are Internet companies just like FANG during the Net Neutrality discussions. When I see just how bad ISPs are acting, in lack of competition, price gouging, content ownership, data monitoring, it really seems they were successful in shift…
It shouldn't be a whataboutism, it's true. They gave too much of a pass to ISPs and that needs to stop. But it doesn't stop by relaxing on tech companies like Google, that would only further normalize it.
I'm not a lawyer but the first amendment argument is a separate concern than antitrust violations. You can exercise your first amendment rights while still breaching antitrust law.
Depends on what's being investigated here, if the government would actually want to compel Google to alter their search results then it's a first amendment case.
> Take a look at google AMP
The argument here is its unfair to bias ranking towards a preferred format. In this case, something about excluding competitors, except AMP is completely open-source[1] so...?
The counterargument is yes you can, because it's your pamphlet/newspaper/website and you're the editor, not the government.
> You can exercise your first amendment rights while still breaching antitrust law. Go on... example?
Here is the first example I came across: https://www.rbr.com/six-broadcast-tv-groups-settle-doj-antit... No one is saying these broadcast groups don't have 1st amendment rights, just that they were going about it in an anti-competitive way.
That's a price fixing/cartel case not a first amendment one.
Dear Justice Department: Take a look at google AMP and how they use it to strong-arm publishers by linking it to search placement. You'll find some stuff.
AMP is just the start. I won't be surprised if we find out Google is promoting websites for using Google Analytics.
That's one interpretation by interested parties another would be that enforcement lawyers are always aggressive and those who make the decision in the end would have to weigh the odds of winning in court and unanimously they decides not. Regardless, the FTC would have had a much better chance than the DOJ as they have specific broad powers more suitable to this case.
It's not so much an interpretation of what happened as it is a leak of what happened. >The Federal Trade Commission on Thursday faced renewed questions about its handling of its antitrust investigation into Google, after documents revealed that an internal report had recommended stronger action. The 2012 report, from the agency’s bureau of competition, said that the agency should sue the Internet search company for a…
The EU has different rules (and extra motivation to go after US companies) they also don't need to win in court, their enforcement action in unilateral.
Maybe not more data, but perhaps more important data? "Things you've bought before or looked into buying before" seems like much more useful data to sell ads than "non-shopping things you've searched for." It's definitely a higher signal to noise ratio.
If your Amazon receipts go to Gmail, Google collects not just all of that data, but from every other site you've bought stuff from: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/17/google-gmail-tracks-purchase...
This is true for gmail users, which is about half of the email market in the US. Amazon by dollars has over half the ecommerce market, but by any intelligence we have on sales sales they're much closer to 80%.
Even if Google can get some of that data, its still Amazon's data, Google just happens to get some of it.
> You can exercise your first amendment rights while still breaching antitrust law. Go on... example?
Here is the first example I came across: https://www.rbr.com/six-broadcast-tv-groups-settle-doj-antit... No one is saying these broadcast groups don't have 1st amendment rights, just that they were going about it in an anti-competitive way.
The fact that the companies in that suit were radio stations seems irrelevant to the facts of the case; they could have been hamburger restaurants and the legal question would not change.
The career officials at the FTC recommended antitrust action against Google back in 2012, but the political appointees shut them down. >When the Federal Trade Commission neared a momentous decision on whether to charge Google with violating antitrust laws in January 2013, the White House was watching closely. New emails uncovered by the Campaign for Accountability, a public interest watchdog organization, show that a…
FWIW: It sounds nefarious, but the DOJ/FTC/etc quite often meet with all parties prior to taking antitrust action. That's because (at least in the number of times i've been invited to meetings with these sorts of regulators) the relevant folks are not idiots, and in fact are trying to understand all sides of the issue before deciding what they should do. This is actually what you want them to do, as there are rarely,…
I’ll note for the audience that such meetings are common for many types of prosecutions, even for relatively low level criminal ones. If you’ve every watched a TV show about a murder investigation, you know the police will talk to you and get your statement before they arrest you. The SEC will also send a “we’re thinking of suing you” letter (Wells notice), where you can respond with a PowerPoint presentation of “why you shouldn’t sue me.” When you’ve got complex antitrust and securities issues, that up-front discussion becomes even more important.
Look, I get it — the issues with Google, Facebook, Amazon. But I can’t help but think about how AT&T and other ISPs banded together to claim they shouldn’t be regulated because they are Internet companies just like FANG during the Net Neutrality discussions. When I see just how bad ISPs are acting, in lack of competition, price gouging, content ownership, data monitoring, it really seems they were successful in shift…
I think more importantly, ISPs made a (in my opinion, bullshit) free market argument that resonated with conservatives. At the same time, FANG made themselves an enemy of conservatives. Conservatives are now in power.
I feel like about 2/3rds of hn commentators are going to be very disappointed when we learn this investigation is whether it's an antitrust violation to regularly list new york times and cnn news results above breitbart's. The Trump administration has threatened this a couple of times now... edit: I'm not sure why this is less plausible than the Obama white house personally interceding on the earlier case because the…