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

Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 510 posts

Re: Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules

#271

Post by Henchman21 »

moshegramovsky wrote: post #245
Henchman21 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were really smart guys. But smart guys don’t stand a chance in the face of all that money because it attracts people who know how to manipulate and control smart people . Smart people think they’re at the top of the totem pole. But really its those without ethics who sit at the top in our society. This is a conundrum humanity must address if we’re to survive over the long term, IMO.

This is seriously one of the best things I've ever read here. Extremely well said.

Your kind words are appreciated, thank you.

Re: Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules

#272

Post by porridgeraisin »

fidotron wrote: post #68
megaman821 wrote: post #38

I don't think this article explains it well. Google sells ad space on behalf of the publishers and also sells the ads on behalf of the advertisers. It also runs the auction that places the ads into the ad space. See this graphic https://images.app.goo.gl/ADx5xrAnWNicgoFu7 . Parts of this can definately be broken up without destroying Google.

In fairness to Google on this (and I cannot believe I just wrote that) it's common practice to be on both sides like this, and even to have some external exchange in the middle that you have a deal with just so you can claim it's obviously fair. That entire industry is a horrifying shitshow of sociopathy, at the expense of absolutely everyone else, both viewers (supply side) and advertisers (demand side).

On the plus side, it would be nice to make an example of Google and deal a blow to ad tech in general. At this point even putting to sleep the entire google(or any other ad tech company of your choosing) Board is acceptable if it means ad tech shuts down.

Re: Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules

#273

Post by chris_va »

franczesko wrote: post #147

Google also destroyed journalism as we know it. Who knows how the industry would look like, if it wasn't suffocated by its monopoly

(disclaimer that I was the TL of Google News a very long time ago, so feel free to ignore what I say as biased)

I would argue that monster.com and craiglist, which collectively removed the majority of newpaper revenue, were probably the nail in the coffin. You can see some of the decline pre-internet in this 1999 take: https://niemanreports.org/newspapers-arrive-at-economic-cros... ... which already laments the decline of journalism.

Pre-internet, editorial boards were fundamentally gatekeepers of knowledge. They were certainly not unbiased, but for the most part they had a level of integrity. Now, one can find (or have pushed) any "narrative" one chooses, whether or not it bears any resemblance to reality. While Google does make it easier to find any/all of this content, I would argue that the intrinsic incentives of social media platforms for more engagement are probably the high order bit.

Re: Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules

#274

Post by gtirloni »

guywithahat wrote: post #188

I've always been somewhat opposed to this, because there's already like 10 different search alternatives, and now AI is taking over, which will further weaken their grip. Google is on top because they do the best job; I use Yandex primarily, but I switch back to google all the time for coding related questions. In terms of advertising, there's billions of views on Facebook/Instagram/X to get, in addition to all the o…

Online advertising isn't limited to ads in search results. They can include ads everywhere and work as a platform for others as well.

Re: Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules

#275

Post by vkou »

spamizbad wrote: post #113
tonymet wrote: post #93

the FTC is like Jim Cramer. Once they judge a business to be a monopoly, the business falls apart and the monopoly is irrelevant. Look at the hundreds of millions wasted on the Windows / IE monopoly trial. the AT&T break up set American technology back by decades and killed our domestic chip production.

AT&T was broken up in 1982. Our manufacturing peaked around 1990 and what really pushed it downward was China joining the WTO. We also halted a lot of fab construction domestically after the GFC of '08.

This is an interesting theory, but US manufacturing output actually peaked ~2022-2024.

US wages paid to manufacturing jobs are going down year-over-year, because of automation, and, uh, other factors. But the amount of products that are produced has grown year over year... Or was growing, until waves at everything in 2025.

Re: Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules

#277

Post by shadowgovt »

timewizard wrote: post #255
foobarian wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If only Marx et al. knew that the end game of capitalism is communism! Would have probably slept much better at night.

So you're acknowledging that the best way to make a population powerless and then rob them blind is Communism?

I don't know, capitalism seems to be doing a pretty good job of it right now. I'd have to see some hard numbers on efficacy.

Has anyone done a normalized any% speedrun to breadlines on these two fierce contenders? Can monarchy get in on this?

Re: Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules

#278

Post by snozolli »

ajross wrote: post #124
snozolli wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Split off Android to swim on its own and we get an iPhone monopoly. Why? Android appears to be profitable.

Only Google-integrated Android devices are profitable. You really think Graphene/Lineage/etc... devices have a chance in the market vs. Apple Computer ? Splitting off the integration means those devices have to pay for it or go without. Even Amazon failed in this space. Which is to say, the parts of Android that are "profitable" are the parts tied to the broader corporate product suite.

Only Google-integrated Android devices are profitable.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Pixel devices? Android devices being paid by Google to use Google's app store, browser, and default search engine? What does any of that have to do with whether or not Android is separated?

You really think Graphene/Lineage/etc... devices have a chance in the market vs. Apple Computer?

What does that have to do with whether or not the Android 'division' of Google would survive being spun off?

Re: Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules

#279

Post by greenchair »

adrr wrote: post #250
ksec wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thankfully HN is finally at a stage people can come out and talk about Ad tech without being harassed or attacked. Could you explain more on this. What do you think makes Google Ad or DoubleClick so special? And >What matters is how much they are earning compared to the next best alternative. Correct me if I am wrong, you are suggesting even if publisher only earns 30% of the revenue they still earn more than on othe…

I am on the purchasing side. Google is very efficient when delivering traffic especially their Max Performance product. Probably the cheapest of all platforms. So they are serving relevant ads to users who engage with the ads. This is win for me and I assume also a win for publishers who get revenue due to higher engagement. Also users should benefit because they are getting relevant ads. Linear tv is notorious for n…

I don't think relevant ads are healthy for the many people who do not have enough self-control to resist temptation. Ads are essentially playing mindgames triggering fear/jealousy on these people to steal their money. For the people who do have self-control, they don't need other people trying to tell them what to buy.

Re: Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules

#280

Post by secondcoming »

fidotron wrote: post #233
secondcoming wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well yes, a higher winning bid will win the auction, unless it's a Private Marketplace auction.

Isn't the point that some bidders will not know which it is when they make the bid? RTB bid requests have support for the normal auction based bids but also indicating possible private marketplaces which may come into play depending on the exchange and seller, meaning that the highest bidder will have indicated to the world their price, but not won the auction, so they may (erroneously) conclude next time to try bidd…

They do know if the bid is part of a PMP. They can still place an Open Market bid if allowed but they should reduce their expectation of winning that auction, even if they're the highest bidder not because of skullduggery but because the publisher has a prior arrangement with a DSP or advertiser.

Valuing a bid is a complex and interesting task. Ever since Second Price auctions started dying out DSPs should have moved to essentially algorithmic trading. A price calculation depends on tens if not hundreds of factors that are evaluted on a per auction basis.

Advertisers have been demanding more transparency into where their money is going for quite some time now. If you're an advertiser and your DSP isn't giving you detailed reporting into the fees they're being charged then it's time to move DSP.

Post reply on HN