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

U.S. accuses Google of abusing monopoly in ad technology

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 266 posts

Re: U.S. accuses Google of abusing monopoly in ad technology

#21

Post by magicalist »

omgomgomgomg wrote: post #13

I was neutral on google, they seem to be very low key, so they fly under the radar. Then I started to see their little ads tricks and the story on how they "acquired" google maps aka terra vision and yes , wouldnt put it beyond them to use every trick in the book they can get away with.

> on how they "acquiered" google maps aka terra vision

I think you're thinking of Google Earth, and wasn't that story made up for a movie?

edit: wiki says[1] there actually was a lawsuit the miniseries was based on, but the accuser lost because they had actually taken someone else's ideas for Terravision and then turned around and patented it?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Earth#Other_concerns

Re: U.S. accuses Google of abusing monopoly in ad technology

#22

Post by birdyrooster »

omgomgomgomg wrote: post #13

I was neutral on google, they seem to be very low key, so they fly under the radar. Then I started to see their little ads tricks and the story on how they "acquired" google maps aka terra vision and yes , wouldnt put it beyond them to use every trick in the book they can get away with.

That mockumentary is full of shit if you read more on the case law and what actually happened.

Don’t worry, I felt made a fool of after watching too. The producers of Billion Dollar Code are weak for doing what they did, even if it makes the story better.

Re: U.S. accuses Google of abusing monopoly in ad technology

#23

Post by jimbob45 »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #14
jeffbee wrote: post #6

It's pretty irritating that in the presence of clear collusion and abuse inflicted upon general consumers of things like eggs and motor fuels and insulin, the administration spends its limited enforcement capacity this way.

[flagged]

I don't think "whataboutism" is valid criticism when resources are limited.

Re: U.S. accuses Google of abusing monopoly in ad technology

#24

Post by jeffbee »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #14
jeffbee wrote: post #6

It's pretty irritating that in the presence of clear collusion and abuse inflicted upon general consumers of things like eggs and motor fuels and insulin, the administration spends its limited enforcement capacity this way.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: U.S. accuses Google of abusing monopoly in ad technology

#25

Post by nus07 »

basch wrote: post #15
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #2

https://archive.ph/vJYU2 I hope something comes of this, but other than a change in administration, what's new on this in the last decade? Hasn't Google essentially controlled most of online advertising for eons? In fact, perhaps more recently Facebook/Meta has chipped into that market more than how things were 8-10 years ago. I was part of an acquisition that Google made in the ad-tech industry back in 2011 and ther…

In 2017, Lina M. Khan, at the age of 27, published Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox. It said everyone was getting antitrust wrong, and there were other ways giant conglomerates were harming competition. Traditionally, unless the consumer was harmed through short term price fixing, just about anything was allowed to fly. The paper took the legal world by storm, and two years ago, she was nominated, confirmed, and appointed…

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/12/06/lina-khans-bat...

For more context. A long but good read on the current FTC chairman.

Re: U.S. accuses Google of abusing monopoly in ad technology

#26

Post by LatteLazy »

If we get the price of advertising down, we can have twice as much to keep revenue flat. Then we can take the money and use it for dividends instead of services like gmail and because that's how competitive businesses have to operate. This world will be much better than having a benign monopolist /s

Re: U.S. accuses Google of abusing monopoly in ad technology

#27

Post by [deleted] »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #2

https://archive.ph/vJYU2 I hope something comes of this, but other than a change in administration, what's new on this in the last decade? Hasn't Google essentially controlled most of online advertising for eons? In fact, perhaps more recently Facebook/Meta has chipped into that market more than how things were 8-10 years ago. I was part of an acquisition that Google made in the ad-tech industry back in 2011 and ther…

[deleted]

Re: U.S. accuses Google of abusing monopoly in ad technology

#28

Post by steveBK123 »

ajross wrote: post #19
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #2

https://archive.ph/vJYU2 I hope something comes of this, but other than a change in administration, what's new on this in the last decade? Hasn't Google essentially controlled most of online advertising for eons? In fact, perhaps more recently Facebook/Meta has chipped into that market more than how things were 8-10 years ago. I was part of an acquisition that Google made in the ad-tech industry back in 2011 and ther…

> I hope something comes of this, but other than a change in administration, what's new on this in the last decade? Hasn't Google essentially controlled most of online advertising for eons? As the article points out, "preventing monopolies" is not the prima facie goal of antitrust law as traditionally interpreted. Monopolies are bad because of their effects on the market (e.g. they can raise prices higher than a comp…

The US has, for maybe 30 years or so, looked past the traditional trust busting intention of anti-trust (hey, it's in the name!) laws - preventing monopolies.

The more modern interpretation has basically been "monopolies are ok if it lowers consumer prices", which sort of never made sense. Once you finish strangling all your competition, wouldn't you then raise prices? And then what, the government lets them do that until some vague line in the sand is crossed and we then actually enforce the law?

There are issues on the other side too - monopsony, where a company is so big they are the only nature buyer. You get this with Walmart being able to disproportionately squeeze their suppliers. You have this problem in labor markets sometimes because who else are you going to work for if your employer is super sized?

Lina Khan's writings, and the fact that Biden admin appointed her, indicates these recent assumptions about allowance of monopolies can probably be thrown out the window.

Re: U.S. accuses Google of abusing monopoly in ad technology

#29

Post by basch »

rockinghigh wrote: post #20
basch wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 2017, Lina M. Khan, at the age of 27, published Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox. It said everyone was getting antitrust wrong, and there were other ways giant conglomerates were harming competition. Traditionally, unless the consumer was harmed through short term price fixing, just about anything was allowed to fly. The paper took the legal world by storm, and two years ago, she was nominated, confirmed, and appointed…

Interesting story. By the way, the phrase is "resting on its laurels".

Said phrase was coined intentionally. It was a purposeful allusion of sorts to the idiom.

Resting to me meant inaction. Conversely, the FTC appears to still analyze things for antitrust, but was doing so through an outdated framework.

Lorals means "pertaining to lore." I meant it to mean that Bork and Co had created an unquestionable mythology around what anti-trust was. Blasphemists were ignored and discarded.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/lora...

So, new idiom minted. Maybe someday it can make it into the dictionary, and cite this post.

Coasting on your lorals = on auto-pilot, not questioning what put you on your trajectory, complacent enough to keep the flight path and speed. Tangently related to: appeal to tradition, argumentum ad antiquitatem, argumentum ad antiquitam, appeal to antiquity, and appeal to common practice.

Re: U.S. accuses Google of abusing monopoly in ad technology

#30

Post by pwinnski »

jeffbee wrote: post #6

It's pretty irritating that in the presence of clear collusion and abuse inflicted upon general consumers of things like eggs and motor fuels and insulin, the administration spends its limited enforcement capacity this way.

It turns out that the US government can do more than one thing at a time, and they are in fact acting in many cases simultaneously, including insulin.

They haven't been "limited" so much in the past as "unmotivated and inept," which has been changing over the last few years.

If you're actually interested in the changes, check out Matt Stoller's newsletter: https://mattstoller.substack.com

Post reply on HN