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

Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 428 posts

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#191

Post by floatingatoll »

jqpabc123 wrote: post #105
jollybean wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This kind of rhetoric is problematically naive. Advertising effectiveness is often vague, but it also works well in many circumstances. It takes a certain kind of hubris to suggest that all these companies spending $500B on advertising have no idea what they are doing, and that if only they listened to HN/Reddit they could save so much money and make the world a better place. The issue here is to what extent G has ma…

Please show evidence that Google's global privacy invading data collection network justifies their 3-4X premium in advertising cost over simple non-invasive alternatives. "Problematically naive" is assuming the cost is justified without any such evidence. Amazon's ad business is currently growing at a 70% annual rate by simply displaying ads based on search words --- probably because searching on their site is an ove…

I happen to to agree with you, but this demand for proof is untenable and doesn’t promote good discussion. Any such proof would be guaranteed insufficient, as macroeconomics are by definition reductive and summary in nature, and the last thing we need is to nitpick econ to death in this thread.

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#192

Post by dang »

cletus wrote: post #133

F Twitter threads. Seriously... just... stop. It's worth noting with all the revelations in the last couple of days, that at least some of them aren't new. For example: - "Jedi Blue: A Scandal That Highlights, Yet Again, The Need To Regulate Big Tech" (19 Jan 2021) [1] - "Facebook and Google allegedly cut a deal that reduced ad competition" (17 Jan 2021) [2] - "Google acknowledges it foresaw possibility of probe of '…

Please don't do the Twitter thread complaint cliché thing on HN. It passed tedious a long time ago, and reliably generates terrible repetitive discussion.

It's basically covered (as in excluded) by this site guideline: "Please don't complain about website formatting, back-button breakage, and similar annoyances. They're too common to be interesting."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#193

Post by Closi »

mbreese wrote: post #187
criddell wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you get a trademark for Foo-town Yard Care?

Why wouldn’t you be able to? Specific-word plus generic word(s) seems to be a good formula for trademarks. $mycity lawn care would be just fine. But it would make it difficult to let’s others advertise for lawn care in $mycity.

That would be classed as a descriptive mark and is unlikely to be granted registration.

> Descriptive marks are a type of trademark that are usually composed of a word or words that merely describe a product or that identify the characteristics of a product and are generally considered weak marks. In other words, these are descriptions that could be attributed to the goods or services offered by a business. Generally, such marks are unlikely to be granted registration or protection under trademark law. However, descriptive words may be registered and protected by the law if they acquire “secondary meaning.” This happens when the original or primary meaning of the descriptive words becomes exclusively associated with a particular business.

Source: https://www.kirkpatricklawpc.com/blog/what-descriptive-trade...

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#194

Post by dang »

credittw2021 wrote: post #97
Digit-Al wrote: post #87

Does anyone else wonder if Page and Brin feel any pangs of guilt over how their company went from "Don't be evil" to such corrupt practises? It really is a classic case study in the journey from apparent idealism to a complete moral vacuum.

[flagged]

Please don't do internet psychiatric diagnosis on HN or glibly call names like sociopath. That's already one circle of internet hell and it points deeper in. We want the opposite vector here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&type=comment&dateRange=a...

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#195

Post by dls2016 »

whimsicalism wrote: post #176
dls2016 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter threads are like powerpoint for people even dumber than powerpoint is for.

I think they're fine if you have lots of information to digest and you want to see tidbits about something else. I came across this thread on my Twitter, was interested, so read parts of the linked complaint myself. I don't see what is bad about that? Now, linking to the thread on HN seems dumb, I'd prefer something long form.

> I think they're fine

Perhaps if they weren't on twitter.com. The site is impossible to use if you're not signed in, especially on mobile. This is probably 85% of the problem, IMO.

> I'd prefer something long form

Yeah, except not too long and not on Medium, either... haha. I like the idea of the constraints of a tweet and that a tweet thread (like a powerpoint) forces an economy of words. The tweet threads on HN are usually from high quality writers, so it's not actually that terrible to read them. But you're still stuck in the same "cognitive style" as powerpoint.

Maybe I'm simply old and my belief that "microblogging is an oxymoron" is wrong.

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#197

Post by monopoledance »

qnsi wrote: post #8

What can we as people in top 1% with 1) information about big tech abuses 2) skills to fix this do? Individually we can use browsers like firefox or brave and probably donate time or money to them, but I think it's not enough. I think we would need something like a movement against those abuses, but probably the biggest win would be a business model that could win with them in the free market. Is this possible? Has a…

Incentivize the economy to not overproduce bullshit ad nauseam. Vote with your wallet, and push for it culturally, or spiritually - offer alternative experiences and goals to consumerism. Stop working for companies producing products nobody asked for, which are made for “economic growth” as a goal in it self. (If your factual constraints allow for it.)

As long as there is this enormous pressure to sell you ever more things, nothing will change for the better… just change: More influencers, more product placements and sponsor guided “content“, more MLM type bullshit all around. Someone will figure out how to recruit your friends and family to explicitly advertise the next innovation in problem creation inside your last domain of unquestioned trust and honesty - mark my words! How about a gamified “hit” on your friends? Getting big-data intelligence briefings and some psychological guidance on someone you used to care about, and some shitty internet points as reward for their conversion: “Agent 1337biz, your next target is your colleague John Doe. The file is transmitted as we speak. Further our influence, your loyalty will be rewarded! Hail, Hydra”.

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#198

Post by beambot »

jqpabc123 wrote: post #23
qnsi wrote: post #8

What can we as people in top 1% with 1) information about big tech abuses 2) skills to fix this do? Individually we can use browsers like firefox or brave and probably donate time or money to them, but I think it's not enough. I think we would need something like a movement against those abuses, but probably the biggest win would be a business model that could win with them in the free market. Is this possible? Has a…

... the biggest win would be a business model that could win with them in the free market. The alternative business model is so simple and is already in place --- simply advertise based on expressed interest. This is what DuckDuckGo is doing very effectively. Show ads based on search words. No global, privacy invading network required. Amazon is doing the same quite effectively. Their ad business is growing by leaps…

I'm not sure if include Amazon in the list of privacy conscious providers:

https://nypost.com/2021/10/19/i-found-an-amazon-folder-with-...

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#199

Post by blast »

setpatchaddress wrote: post #159
DSingularity wrote: post #82

It’s interesting that only republican states are holding google accountable on all this.

Specifically, activist GOP states; some of the most corrupt politicians on the planet. I’m sure there’s actionable antitrust against Google, but this particular lawsuit is probably hot air.

We need each corrupt side to fight the other's corruption.

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#200

Post by Closi »

sharemywin wrote: post #78
Closi wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are right - That’s another practice is morally dubious (And imo should be outlawed!) (Not on the purchasing companies side, but on google selling keywords for someone’s brandname which effectively forces companies into bidding for their own name)

But don't consumers have a right to see options. To me it's like a competitor buy a billboard or the location next store

Eh, I see it as different to a billboard - a lot of people use google as the only way to find your site where they type in a brand name to find your business (ie lots of people don’t use urls).

This is putting a step inbetween someone trying to access your website where they HAVE to read about a competitor (because they have to read to see if it’s your site or not). Your competitor can even choose the wording of their link and description, while you are stuck with something google has arbitrarily chosen.

It’s more akin to hiring people to stand outside the entrance of your competitors store, and when they see people going in they go up and try to convince the people to your store rather than the competitors.

Post reply on HN