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

Microsoft CEO testifies that Google’s power in search is ubiquitous

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 236 posts

Re: Microsoft CEO testifies that Google’s power in search is ubiquitous

#221

Post by octacat »

pokerhobo wrote: post #131

Seems like the responses ignore that fact that it’s not illegal to have a monopoly. It’s illegal to unfairly use your monopoly to prevent competition. That’s what this is about.

Extending on that.

Google has special treatment for their services in the search results. I.e. different look for their market, prefers youtube to the search results which has a better text version. Now it shows their hotels booking service instead of actually searching for hotel sites (they had the same thing with online shops). Pretty much killed Yelp by copying features with maps and showing their reviews when searching.

On another hand, MS/FB/twitter do the same.

Re: Microsoft CEO testifies that Google’s power in search is ubiquitous

#222

Post by sylware »

delfinom wrote: post #215
sylware wrote: post #23

lol, their significant share holders are big tech one: vanguard and blackrock. Same guys...

80% of all stock market money is tied up in retirement fund managers like them, yes.

yep, and blackrock and vanguard are tens of thousands of billions of $, not to mention big tech itself does manage billions of cash.

There is ZERO real competition, at best some internal pet contests.

Re: Microsoft CEO testifies that Google’s power in search is ubiquitous

#223

Post by Woshiwuja »

specialist wrote: post #220
Woshiwuja wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why does the US still use common people during jury is beyond me tho

Perhaps we need more more specialized courts. My local jurisdiction has separate tracks for both vets and addicts. Because handling those cases in the "normal" court is inefficient and unproductive. (eg Most addicts need treatment, not jail time. Vets specific care, not jail time.) IIRC, there's a separate bankruptcy court. Sounds smart. I don't expect laypersons to understand finance and such. Methinks we need separ…

Is the jury decision final or can the judge ignore it? For example, why is the jury even involved in a murder trial?

Re: Microsoft CEO testifies that Google’s power in search is ubiquitous

#224

Post by jessriedel »

mjan22640 wrote: post #159
jessriedel wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The plain language of the statute doesn't matter much once legal precedent is entrenched. This is especially true when the plain language is incredibly underspecified. For those who don't know, the Sherman antitrust act has only two key paragraphs (and six procedural paragraphs). > Sec. 1. Every contract, combination in the form of trust or other- wise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the sever…

The courts are bound by the law arent they. Ie what is stated in the law is illegal, and anything else is legal.

The law doesn't clearly state what's illegal. In this case, it barely mumbles and gestures at it. In applying the law, it is inevitable that it will have to be more precisely defined (or, worse, applied inconsistently).

Re: Microsoft CEO testifies that Google’s power in search is ubiquitous

#226

Post by CPLX »

jessriedel wrote: post #224
mjan22640 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The courts are bound by the law arent they. Ie what is stated in the law is illegal, and anything else is legal.

The law doesn't clearly state what's illegal. In this case, it barely mumbles and gestures at it. In applying the law, it is inevitable that it will have to be more precisely defined (or, worse, applied inconsistently).

The law isn't particularly confusing. There's just been a multi-decade lobbying effort funded by the most powerful and moneyed interests in the country to muddy the waters about this.

Re: Microsoft CEO testifies that Google’s power in search is ubiquitous

#227

Post by AtNightWeCode »

jiggawatts wrote: post #3

One way Google maintains their monopoly is that many websites block all bots except for the Google indexing bot. This makes it literally impossible for anyone to make a competing search engine because millions of doors are slammed in their face. There is no practical way to negotiate access at this scale either leaving no options for small startups — e.g.: AI-based search! One possible anti-monopoly measure would be…

I think most corps allows known bots. To allow all traffic to a major site is not possible.

The problem is bigger the other way around I would say. That Google, AWS, Azure and so on use the same AS numbers for private and public cloud. It is not easy to detect if it really is the Google bot or some low-lifes performing DOS-attacks from GCP. Many attacks, especially state sponsored attacks, comes from trusted clouds.

Re: Microsoft CEO testifies that Google’s power in search is ubiquitous

#228

Post by TheCoelacanth »

nojvek wrote: post #219
layer8 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can be broken uo so that the entity making the browser is not the same entity operating the search engine anymore. If course, the same would apply to Edge and Bing.

The entity making Edge is mostly Google. Edge is a shell on top of Chromium engine. Chromium/Chrome team(s) is easily a few 100 million loss making, only profitable because of ads. No one pays for the browser. It’s a loss leader. So splitting them means things could get worse instead as the top browser engineers go elsewhere.

Top browser engineers going elsewhere is a good thing because it means more competition.

Browsers being forced to come up with a real business model is a good thing too.

Re: Microsoft CEO testifies that Google’s power in search is ubiquitous

#229

Post by jessriedel »

CPLX wrote: post #226
jessriedel wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law doesn't clearly state what's illegal. In this case, it barely mumbles and gestures at it. In applying the law, it is inevitable that it will have to be more precisely defined (or, worse, applied inconsistently).

The law isn't particularly confusing. There's just been a multi-decade lobbying effort funded by the most powerful and moneyed interests in the country to muddy the waters about this.

I didn't say "confusing". I said "unclear" and "underspecified". I'm looking I the words of the law myself and I have no idea what should and shouldn't be illegal.

Re: Microsoft CEO testifies that Google’s power in search is ubiquitous

#230

Post by smolder »

satvikpendem wrote: post #126
anon25783 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the only reason the US economy is not a complete dumpster fire. The US economy is a complete dumpster fire for those of us worth less than seven figures. Big tech monopolization does not strengthen our productive capacity, and breaking up the big tech companies won't weaken it. If anything, it will strengthen the economy by making it more viable to found a tech startup without the explicit goal of being bought out.…

> The US economy is a complete dumpster fire for those of us worth less than seven figures. Not sure what you mean, you can invest in VTI, wait 30 years, and hit 7 figures real. The US economy is stronger than almost every other economy on the planet and is so even for the non-rich.

> Not sure what you mean

Look at the risks a poorer person in the US has to contend with, many of them life-ending expensive, as well as the difficulty of finding places to live that offer decent job markets, services, amenities, and are affordable.

Life here can get really ugly for people that are well above the 'poverty line'. That's not to say it's really the overall economy making things hard for them, but more like microeconomic constraints. However, that's the lens they see the economy through.

Post reply on HN