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

US weighs Google break-up in landmark antitrust case

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 888 posts

Re: US weighs Google break-up in landmark antitrust case

#291

Post by gretch »

voisin wrote: post #130
ergonaught wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google search results are garbage and are still superior to DDG. I start every search in DDG and have to take it to Google fully 90% of the time.

I am just shocked at how different our experiences are. I wonder what leads to the vast gulf? Could your results be better due to what you are searching or is the algorithm producing different results for each of us, based on other Google cues?

Because generalized Internet search encompasses any and all human interests. The vast gulf could easily be explained by bias in what 2 ppl are interested in and search for.

For example, if Alice is very interested in Sports News, coding, and movie reviews, they might get great results.

And then Bob runs searches on cooking recipes, interior design, and music, and gets terrible results.

Most likely you care about something that the other person doesn’t, biasing your search results greatly.

Re: US weighs Google break-up in landmark antitrust case

#292

Post by ta1243 »

mvdtnz wrote: post #164
tannhaeuser wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN isn't that special a place considering nerds think about Google as a "search engine" lol. Google/Alphabet, first and foremost, is the largest online advertiser via its acquisitions of YouTube, DoubleClick, and others, in addition to selling ad placement on Google Search via AdWords, plus a growing number of consumer portals for price comparisons etc. integrated with Google Search (leaving out tracking your activit…

google.com is a search engine, regardless of what drives Google's revenue. Weird to say it's not.

But Google the company is an advertising company, regardless of what they use to spread those adverts. Weird to say it's not.

Re: US weighs Google break-up in landmark antitrust case

#293

Post by someluccc »

dartos wrote: post #289
someluccc wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A) Do you pay them? - No: then yes it is free “But my data” Have your ever sold your data? Would the value you could ever possibly receive for your data ever equate to the value you get from the free services? Likely No and No. Is the free ad supported city newspaper free? Yes it is in fact free, just like FM radio is free, and broadcast television is free, and sidewalks next to billboards are free Someone creating s…

> A) Do you pay them? - No: then yes it is free And here we see the ostrich. When faced with the horrors of reality, sticks its head in the sand. It’s simpler in there.

Your data is worthless. Please do tell me how much you could sell your “data” for right now.

Re: US weighs Google break-up in landmark antitrust case

#294

Post by spankalee »

ta1243 wrote: post #272
duped wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe if google sold more products to the feds they wouldn't be so brazen as to kill them off

Google doesn't really sell products though, not to businesses. It sells individual data to businesses, it sells advertising to businesses. The only thing the government will be interested in is the spying which they aren't allowed to do, but unaccountable corporations are allowed to do. As people become more aware of this it means google becomes less and less useful.

Google does not sell individual's data to businesses. Where do you even get that notion?

Re: US weighs Google break-up in landmark antitrust case

#295

Post by atrus »

hiatus wrote: post #254
arghwhat wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After having been a paid subscriber for a number of months, I have to say that it still wasn't cutting it. I still ended up falling back to google all the time. Plus, https://d-shoot.net/kagi.html

Wow, those comments from the founder on GDPR are not unlike "we just chatgpted the license lol". I'm reconsidering my sub.

Yeah the sentence "We do not collect/extract this information, but the user volunteers it" is just...200% yikes.

Re: US weighs Google break-up in landmark antitrust case

#296

Post by idle_zealot »

bluGill wrote: post #268
ssklash wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If ads are the only way people are able to learn about products, then there is clearly a massive failure of imagination, as well as innovation. People know what they need, and have always known. The concept of exploiting human psychology in order to sell more of a product to people who likely don't need it is a relatively recent development in human history. Plus you can just search for stuff you need in a search eng…

> People know what they need, and have always known No we don't. I need a better mouse trap, but I already have mouse traps that work, so if you make a better one you need me to find out about it otherwise I'll just buy the same old not so good ones out of habit thinking they work as good as any other one. There are also problems that I don't even know I have. There are a lot of houses with terrible insulation that t…

These ads do not need to interrupt people's lives to make their cases. If that mouse trap is so good then people who are in the market will discover it by active searching, then spread their discovery. If the new insulation will save people money then that's newsworthy information and will be reported on in information outlets that people subscribe to. The idea that businesses paying to push awareness is the only way people might discover previously unknown products and services is absurd.

Re: US weighs Google break-up in landmark antitrust case

#298

Post by ta1243 »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #284
feelandcoffee wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I miss old contextual advertising. Like you read a sports website, you see ads for matches, sports gear, etc, all based on the content not the user preferences.

That's just a lesson that capitalism is insatiable. Early on, Google didn't have personalized ads and they were still making money hand over fist just because search queries are an excellent signal into stuff you may want to buy. But in "line must always go up" fashion, there is even more money to be squeezed out if they surveille everything you do to personalize ads. Same thing happened with Facebook. They had a ton…

The adverts were better too. When I'm seaching for "vacuum cleaner reviews", there are adverts for vacuum cleaners.

After I make my decision and buy one (online, or in person), I no longer search for "vacuum cleaner reviews", but I search instead for "skiing in January" and I no longer get adverts for vacuum cleaners, I get it for ski resorts.

Re: US weighs Google break-up in landmark antitrust case

#299

Post by ta1243 »

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #262
tensor wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I'd love to see is regulation forcing companies to provide reasonably priced ad-free options. There should be a right to opt out of ads.

I mean Youtube does people just don't pay for it....

Youtube videos still come with adverts, just not the google ones.

Re: US weighs Google break-up in landmark antitrust case

#300

Post by baby_souffle »

sitkack wrote: post #214
jajko wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I am worried about anybody holding my private data (apart from US' 3-letter agencies and thats a hill I am not going to die upon since I don't have same basic human rights as US citizens), its Meta. Sure Google is everywhere, but Meta holds much more data on our inner personal sides, which are the easiest things to actually abuse to no end. That and pornhub.

Are you sure? Google has a search and location data, Google email is on one side if not both of most email chains, receipts, etc. I don't use meta for much. Google on the otherhand takes some pretty dedicated behavior to avoid.

> Are you sure? Google has a search and location data, Google email is on one side if not both of most email chains, receipts, etc.

Absolutely not discounting all of that; there are some pretty strong parallels between the data you can infer on a person based on their gmail graph versus their fb messenger graph, for example.

Meta has a lot more "self-revealed-preference" data, though. Which of $thesePosts did you engage with? Does this pattern continue if we mix in $someOtherVariable? How long did you dwell on that one post before like/dis-like? Are you more likely to come back and spend time here if we tell you that $thisPerson has commented on your post instead of $thisOtherPerson? ... etc.

I think only YouTube serves as a plausible source of dwell time in the "at what part of $thisVideo did you click the like button" sense. If you don't use YouTube or use it signed out then it's (slightly) harder for google to attribute your actions to you. Facebook doesn't really have _anything_ that can be accessed without logging in.

Post reply on HN