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

241–250 of 266 posts

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

#241

Post by remarkEon »

rodgerd wrote: post #171
remarkEon wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thomas does seem at least open to having the discussion, and has mentioned social media market position in previous opinions.

The cynic in me says that Thomas is open to the discussion to the extent that it hurts companies that he percieves as his enemies, and will shut it down as soon as it covers companies that he considers on his side.

One good thing about the Court is that you can go ahead and just read what he writes and develop your own opinion on what he thinks and why. It’s all public and free.

A test I have for any article about the Court or its Justices is a really simple one: if the article does link to the Opinion, it’s pushing an agenda or a narrative. Once you do this you’ll probably discover that well over half of the articles about the Supreme Court are not worth reading.

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

#242

Post by lovich »

gggggg5 wrote: post #169
lovich wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re summarizing the problem with trusts in capitalism here in your argument. Capitalism works to generate innovation and wealth because there’s competitive forces driving that. No one can compete with gmail and YouTube because they are being subsidized by another business segment. If you get rid of that competition it leads to stagnation

> No one can compete with gmail This is kind of very obviously not true. >and YouTube Lots of companies operating in the video delivery space too.

> This is kind of very obviously not true.

Who is competing with gmail? Please include market share and revenue in your analysis

>>and YouTube Lots of companies operating in the video delivery space too.

This is more defensibile than the YouTube argument, there is Rumble and Vimeo for instance. But again, What is the market share and revenue for YouTube vs these other “competitors”?

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

#243

Post by dmitriid »

midoridensha wrote: post #231
brookst wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never understood this kind of "regulators should ignore evidence of wrongdoing as long as there is also evidence of someone else engaging in wrongdoing" thinking. Even granting that Apple is super-mega-unbearably evil, do you really think regulators should serialize investigations and actions, only moving on to the #2 worst offender once the #1 is sorted?

>do you really think regulators should serialize investigations and actions, only moving on to the #2 worst offender once the #1 is sorted? Actually, yes. Because if they take down the #2 worst offender, that leaves #1 as the default option for consumers, and strengthens #1's position at #2's expense. It makes the problem even worse than before. As a consumer who doesn't want to use Apple devices, and uses Google bec…

> Because if they take down the #2 worst offender, that leaves #1 as the default option for consumers, and strengthens #1's position at #2's expense.

And yet immediately:

> ake down Apple and create more competition, and then I'll have more options and I'll be able to maybe choose some things other than Google.

But Apple is #2. In everything except AppStore revenue.

Google's Android is #1

Google's Chrome is #1

Google's search is #1

Google's ad engine is #1

Google's Gmail is #1

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

#244

Post by midoridensha »

dmitriid wrote: post #243
midoridensha wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>do you really think regulators should serialize investigations and actions, only moving on to the #2 worst offender once the #1 is sorted? Actually, yes. Because if they take down the #2 worst offender, that leaves #1 as the default option for consumers, and strengthens #1's position at #2's expense. It makes the problem even worse than before. As a consumer who doesn't want to use Apple devices, and uses Google bec…

> Because if they take down the #2 worst offender, that leaves #1 as the default option for consumers, and strengthens #1's position at #2's expense. And yet immediately: > ake down Apple and create more competition, and then I'll have more options and I'll be able to maybe choose some things other than Google. But Apple is #2. In everything except AppStore revenue. Google's Android is #1 Google's Chrome is #1 Google…

According to a quick google search, iOS has almost 60% marketshare in the US. Many other top-GDP nations are similar.

A bunch of people in India using Android isn't much help when you're in a country where most people use Apple.

By your logic, most monopolies shouldn't be investigated or regulated at all, because most people on the entire planet don't use their products. One airline is fine, because most humans don't ever fly. One car company is fine, because most humans don't have cars. Etc.

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

#245

Post by arrosenberg »

emodendroket wrote: post #200
tgv wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand what you'd want instead. The way I see it, antitrust is the lowest bar in consumer (and business) protection. I'd advocate for more regulation, much more, but that seems unreachable in the current political situation in the US.

I suppose what I'm saying is I don't think antitrust is necessarily beneficial for consumers or client businesses. It could be. But generally speaking, large companies pay their employees better, are more likely to comply with regulations, and so on. Having businesses be small for the sake of being small is not necessarily good.

They are more likely to comply with regulations because they effectively get to write them. Smaller is better because a small company doesn't have the resources to corrupt the regulators.

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

#246

Post by CobrastanJorji »

EarlKing wrote: post #238
CobrastanJorji wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I linked to a summary of a UVA paper evaluating the SC decisions of the last century or so and graphing them as pro or anti-corporatist, which concluded that the current court is the most pro-business ever. You have handwaved that it maybe used to be this bad. If you have some sort of basis for your belief, I would be happy to consider it.

The basis of my belief is the undeniable fact that prior courts didn't do a damn thing about it despite decades of opportunities. This simply isn't a partisan issue, no matter how much certain petit bourgeoisie-aligned persons would like to frame it otherwise. This is entirely about the uniparty protecting its class interest in ensuring monopolies are not confronted -- unless they pissed off the wrong party member, o…

I would love to continue arguing, but alas, you say your point is undeniable, and thus, I cannot deny it. Curses, I am foiled by this one simple trick that policy debaters did not want you to know!

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

#247

Post by granzymes »

xxpor wrote: post #71
xvector wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lina Khan may have written great papers but she isn't fit for the job. She harbors a hate for big tech and cannot be impartial in her dealings. See her recent attempt to prevent Meta from acquiring Within. There is no sane, level-headed case that could possibly paint this acquisition as an antitrust violation. Even most legal experts will agree that Lina Khan's case is a stretch at best. It's clear that this case is…

The FTC chairperson is a part of the Executive branch, not a judge. It's not her job to be impartial; she's allowed to have a point of view.

FTC commissioners wear many hats. They exercise executive power in a rulemaking capacity, but they also have both prosecutorial and quasi-judicial power. They can authorize complaints, and the commissioners sit as an appellate court to review the decisions of their in-house court.

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

#248

Post by cmrdporcupine »

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…

Update on my own comment here as a reply: I read the actual legal document, and it specifically calls out the aquisition of my former employer (AdMeld) by Google as one of the key anti-competitive moves Google made in the display ads space.

So that's interesting.

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

#249

Post by gggggg5 »

lovich wrote: post #242
gggggg5 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No one can compete with gmail This is kind of very obviously not true. >and YouTube Lots of companies operating in the video delivery space too.

> This is kind of very obviously not true. Who is competing with gmail? Please include market share and revenue in your analysis >>and YouTube Lots of companies operating in the video delivery space too. This is more defensibile than the YouTube argument, there is Rumble and Vimeo for instance. But again, What is the market share and revenue for YouTube vs these other “competitors”?

>Who is competing with gmail? Please include market share and revenue in your analysis

Outlook, Yahoo, (insert a long list of Chinese providers here), Yandex, Fastmail, Zoho Mail, Hey, Protonmail and so forth.

All of the above have actually managed to capture a decent share of the market, and there are many more.

>This is more defensibile than the YouTube argument, there is Rumble and Vimeo for instance. But again, What is the market share and revenue for YouTube vs these other “competitors”?

Instagram and Facebook are also huge in the same space. I'd guess that Akamai is even bigger.

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

#250

Post by okamiueru »

basch wrote: post #230
okamiueru wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm just trying to help out here. I don't disagree with you, but it gets tiring that every single time some market position is abused, and the word "monopoly" gets used, there is at least one pedantic getting hung up on the "mono" part. Android/iOS market share? Duopoly really. Call it a monopoly? "How is it a monopoly when..." What they mean. What is always meant, is, you have a market position so significant, that…

But this new paradigm of antitrust isn’t about if there’s one two or three of something. It’s a more complex form of antitrust. The Amazon antitrust paradox is about how they aren’t a market leader in tons of their product categories but that they can cross leverage advantages between product categories and verticals to create anticompetitiveness. It’s an analysis of the internal structure of the business, not if the…

Aren't we arguing the same point? Or am I missing something?
Post reply on HN