251–260 of 361 posts
>EU is “concerned that Google has made it harder for rival online advertising services to compete in the so-called ad tech stack.” There are plenty of competitors in the ad tech space. China created TikTok. Korea created KaoKaoTalk. Even Japan created Line. Meanwhile, the EU, for all it's antitrust regulation, hasn't created anything substantial. Perhaps, it's the burdensome regulation that's the problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
99% of the people don't care. That's why there are 2.1 billion people on Facebook. Without surveillance capitalism, prices for services would go up or would cease to be free. The ad-driven business model is a legitimate one. I assume that you use a free service from Google/Facebook/Microsoft? So you must not care about surveillance capitalism either. At least not care enough.
I'd be happy to pay 250€ a year for an OS that I actually own and control. I'd be happy to also pay that amount to browse without being spied on. I'm actually worth less as a target for advertisement. These products not existing is just a failure of the market and maybe of our education, which is why it is important for governments to step in at that point.
That's cool. And do you think many people will also happily pay 250€ every year? Do you think enough people care so make this a profitable business? And if so, why isn't there one yet? If there is, why aren't you a happy paying customer?
>I'd be happy to also pay that amount to browse without being spied on.
Same question.
>These products not existing is just a failure of the market
Is it? Or is the market simply responding to (lack of) demand?
It seems to me that many people on HN forget that we're just part of a very small bubble, a niche. We're a tiny target segment, we're not very good at paying for things, and frankly we make pretty shitty customers for various of other reasons. Instead of admitting that we're not that valuable to businesses, we project our own desires onto others, and when we don't get what we want because it's not profitable, we expect the government to step in and force someone else pay for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you do a minimal amount of research (reading wikipedia), you'll learn that neither FTX nor Binance are US-based
Both operate(d) notionally firewalled US-based exchanges to serve US customers. For FTX we already know this was a pure sham and they lost basically all the FTX.US money as well, and the SEC has alleged that Binance is doing exactly the same.
If forced to breaking up Google should stop giving free services in EU including OS, Browser, Map, Search and any other free service. And charge EU users for each of these services which are top or only one in respective categories. These services are free due to Ad business which is best and can make money to fund other free services. Let EU pay for crappy services built by their own mediocre companies like Nokia wh…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
99% of the people don't care. That's why there are 2.1 billion people on Facebook. Without surveillance capitalism, prices for services would go up or would cease to be free. The ad-driven business model is a legitimate one. I assume that you use a free service from Google/Facebook/Microsoft? So you must not care about surveillance capitalism either. At least not care enough.
I'd be happy to pay 250€ a year for an OS that I actually own and control. I'd be happy to also pay that amount to browse without being spied on. I'm actually worth less as a target for advertisement. These products not existing is just a failure of the market and maybe of our education, which is why it is important for governments to step in at that point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not revisionist, you can literally just search reddit for posts from before the collapse to confirm. https://old.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/cj5ovr/ftx_... (2019) https://old.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/m6b53a/sbf_... (2021) You're right about Binance, but the same wouldn't be true about Fidelity, Coinbase, Kraken, etc. People with an axe to grind about crypto like to pretend the industry is homogen…
Of course FTX was doing shady stuff. Every crypto exchange does it. You can find examples of crypto exchanges doing shady stuff everywhere. But no one figured out that FTX was 100% scam, moved billions from their customers, commingled funds with Alameda until after the collapse. This is despite being on the blockchain. My point is that the transparency of blockchains does not matter for crypto exchanges. They have a…
Since this thread is about Google (don't forget), what's the equivalent of "not your keys" for Google ads? That's why it's an apt comparison, and the subject of the EU's complaint.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>99% of the people don't care. People do care. They just don't have much, if any, choice.
They do. Neeva, founded by a former Google exec, built a search engine that had no ads and no tracking. No surveillance capital. They just shut down because no one wanted to pay for it - hence the idea that 99% don't care about surveillance capital enough. Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-65671468
2. It's literally just a claim. I have no way of verifying the claim. Them asking me to pay for it makes it more sus.
3. I use searx already. Which I can confirm isn’t “spying” on me because it has nothing to tie me to my IRL identity.
4. It was a Bing reseller. I don’t care for Bing resellers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any companies that aren't Apple or Microsoft that compete with Google do not have healthy competition at all. What are you talking about? Google uses www.google.com, the most popular website in the world, to push Chrome. Chrome, the most popular browser in the world, uses www.google.com as the default search engine. Google controls the largest ad marketplace and analytics tool, so they use Chrome to harm the ad lands…
> use Chrome to harm the ad landscape to stifle ad-tech competitors (third party cookies) As in, Chrome is removing third-party cookie support to hurt their ad-tech competitors? How do you square this with Safari kicking off third-party cookie removal, Firefox following close behind, and Chrome being last? > completely hinder the development of ad blocking software (FLoC and web bundles) Neither FLoC nor web bundles…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Google is bad but don’t take away my counterbalance against Apple/MS?” , bit of an odd conclusion. Breaking up a monopoly is always good, it will give us consumers more choice. Gives them less power of politicians. Plus Android is open source so I think you got nothing to worry about.
Absolutely agree with your statement, but also want to add that [Google further guts the Android open source project]( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36319991 ) is a thing.