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

301–310 of 510 posts

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

#301

Post by guywithahat »

wbl wrote: post #192
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…

This is not that case. This case is about how Google only serves certain ad inventory to people who use their products.

I guess my argument is you can use one of the other dozen ad platforms

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

#303

Post by brikym »

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.

It's a lot more complex than that. Google has been caught putting their finger on the scale in the auction process. Not not entirely sure how they did it but I believe they were outbidding third party bidders by a cent because they're downstream in the chain.

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

#304

Post by DrillShopper »

staunton wrote: post #74
DrillShopper wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're arguing we should split Chrome development from Google then I'm 100% with you there.

Google could argue (correctly?) that if split, Chrome couldn't exist without browser deals?

That's belied by the fact that Chromium exists, and I speculate they spun up Chromium in case they were ordered to break up.

The engine is also used in several other web browsers, many of which do not have the clout to survive solely on ads. Yet another reason Google claiming this is absurd.

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

#306

Post by MichaelZuo »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #256
adrr wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No, I personally want to see ads that are as irrelevant as possible. I hate getting a sales pitch forced on me, and would rather see something funny or entertaining showing off an irrelevant product in a clever way than whatever your customers want to shove in front of my eyes. This is why I block all ads, but still appreciate super bowl commercials. And I have discovered that this actually works on me. I like the Ni…

This doesn’t make sense.

Why would any advertiser pay the same in such a scenario?

They would obviously value your attention much less on average if that was a hard limit.

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

#307

Post by dragonwriter »

foobarian wrote: post #217
Frieren wrote: post #202

This is necessary now, but it should have been done years back. Nowadays, many companies backed up by investors with very deep pockets are doing this in all markets: start to buy middle-man companies in a space, it does not matter which one, dominate the market thanks to monopolistic power. Screw the clients making them pay too much, screw the providers paying them too little. Go for the next market. Google does this…

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

> If only Marx et al. knew that the end game of capitalism is communism!

Using "end game" as it seems to be here -- for the natural ultimate result -- Marx argued that as a pretty central thesis of his work (through the mechanism of capitalist development -> proletarian class consciousness -> socialist revolution -> socialism -> -> withering of the state -> communism.)

OTOH, a single entity run for the benefit of a narrow group of stakeholders employing all labor, supplying everything, and effectively enslaving everyone through private control of the means of production is not Communism, or even socialism (defined by proletarian control of the means of production) but just monopolistic capitalism (and, yes, this is where a major non-Leninist Communist criticism of Leninism, and its descendants like Stalinism and Maoism, that feature totalitarian control of a command economy by a narrow self-perpetuating party elite stems from.)

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

#308

Post by xigency »

whoknowsidont wrote: post #41
alabastervlog wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly why it's important to bust them up: all those other products are effectively "dumping" on whatever sector they compete in. This even discourages time-investment (to develop) and learning-to-use investment (for users) for free alternatives, not just commercial ones.

All of their products helped the sector they are in. They didn't "dump" into it. Google continually improved areas where other companies previously refused to, even if they were charging for their services. Mail. Internet browsers? Does it really need to be stated? Open source. Kubernetes. Open source. Tensor architecture. Freely released. I don't see the argument for breaking Google up other than people are holding…

I think you misunderstand what 'dumping' means in this market context. Sure, free software like Linux is great. But if you didn't have that preconceived notion, a competitor dumping free software on the market to make others' initiatives unprofitable would look like an anti-trust violation, rather than a charitable act of community.

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

#309

Post by [deleted] »

whoknowsidont wrote: post #297
CPLX wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google is not anti-competitive. While you're welcome to this opinion you might want to address the fact that Google has recently lost THREE separate trials, each of which individually and separately produced a verdict that they are, in fact, in violation of laws against unfair competition.

You mean the three trials which are definitely not politically motivated, right?

[deleted]

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

#310

Post by fn-mote »

hammock wrote: post #95
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.

And crucially, there are leaked emails, other evidence that demonstrate (at the very least historical and occasional) corruption of this dual- (multi?) agency arrangement. Among the allegations: The Google ad exchange favored its own platforms, limiting the ability of other exchanges to compete fairly in bidding for ad inventory. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-s... In limiting the number o…

I'm willing to believe there's an issue with Google's ad sales, but this comment doesn't have the specifics I'm interested in - in spite of all of the citations.

> In limiting the number of bidders, Google inflated the prices for ad inventory. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-26/closing-arguments-giv...

I had a hard time finding any specifics in that article. It's about closing arguments and does not even mention the number of bidders.

The DOJ press release [1] would be a better citation.

> Google engaged in bid rigging where competitors agree on who will win a bid, again to inflate prices. https://www.justice.gov/atr/preventing-and-detecting-bid-rig...

Note that this link is just to the definition of bid rigging, not an accusation against google.

> Google entered market allocation agreements to create an unfair playing field. https://www.winston.com/en/insights-news/avoiding-antitrust-...

This is an article "Avoiding Antitrust Issues In Search Term Ad Agreements".

[1]: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/press-release/file/1563...

Post reply on HN