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

311–320 of 510 posts

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

#311

Post by milesrout »

ksec wrote: post #162
aiauthoritydev wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who has worked in AdTech I would respectfully disagree. It is indeed complex but it is incredibly efficient. Also it is irrelevant of whether publisher earns 75% or 30% of the total revenue. What matters is how much they are earning compared to the next best alternative. Some companies like Google are incredible at this. Google is not a "monopoly" in this space. In fact the world has far too many Google eq…

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…

[flagged]

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

#312

Post by pyfon »

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.

Not only that, username checks out!

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

#313

Post by milesrout »

shadowgovt wrote: post #277
timewizard wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

We are wealthier than we have ever been so I fail to see how capitalism has made us poor.

Poor compared to what? The past when we were poorer?

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

#314

Post by pyfon »

Henchman21 wrote: post #225
foobarian wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a conundrum humanity must address if we’re to survive over the long term, IMO. Who's to say that this is not actually an evolutionary adaptation that allows the more ruthlessly led tribes to dominate their enemies? The stat about 1/25 of individuals being sociopaths is very telling

Each and every one of us has the ability to choose to be better . That so many just “go along with whatever” is why I personally think we’re unlikely to survive over the long term, unless a more enlightened species leads us by the hand.

Can we get to human or better intelligence through evolution without tribal behaviours?

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

#315

Post by pyfon »

nixpulvis wrote: post #108

I would love to see a company compete in the ad space with the goal of making ads less intrusive . If ads didn't attack me and cause the viewport to jump and become obscured while reading, my first impression with the products would be better, and the sites the ads are on would get more viewership. Quality ads would be at a huge premium.

I'd use the web more without an adblocker if this were the case.

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

#316

Post by dgoldstein0 »

greenchair wrote: post #279
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…

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.

That's a good argument against bad and exploitative ads.

Not all ads are necessarily bad. Eg have you ever seen an ad for an event in your town? Maybe a play or a concert you'd want to see. Those to me feel more like "public notice: thing is happening" and every once in a while I'll actually go buy tickets. But technically, those are ads, just not the kind of exploitative ad you are talking about.

A good ad informs, while leaving the decision up to you. A bad ad distracts you with garbage and/or tries to get you to indulge in your worse impulses

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

#317

Post by pyfon »

alexey-salmin wrote: post #228
nixpulvis wrote: post #108

I would love to see a company compete in the ad space with the goal of making ads less intrusive . If ads didn't attack me and cause the viewport to jump and become obscured while reading, my first impression with the products would be better, and the sites the ads are on would get more viewership. Quality ads would be at a huge premium.

Web ads are bearable for me most of the time, but I'm dismayed by ads in mobile games my kids play. Unskippable 30 second videos that peddle poorly made F2P games. I manage to keep them mostly out of it by paying for worthy games and deleting the rest. However I would in fact happily welcome _some_ ads. Ones that would simply inform me of existence of masterpieces like Tiny Bubbles or Monument Valley rather than pedd…

Turning that on its head, maybe you want something like a 90s shareware lost, curated by someone. Then the games you'd play for free are now ad free (the game is its own ad to get more levels). And you get that curated list. But yeah less money than dialing up ads to 11 while trying to find the whale who'll spend 1000 a week.

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

#318

Post by 9dev »

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…

You phrase it like it would be a good thing to manipulate people into buying stuff they don’t need, to generate an artificial demand by exploiting others.

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

#319

Post by worik »

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…

> If you’re forced to see ads, wouldn’t you want ads that are relevant

Thank Dog that is a false dichotomy. I am not forced to see ads, my ad blockers are effective. Back in the day I moved mountains to get MythTV working so I could dodge the ads on linear TV

I do not want those creepy greedy monkeys anywhere near my data

No. A thousand times no!

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

#320

Post by barkerja »

gregw134 wrote: post #211
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…

There's really only one alternative, Bing. Virtually all the other western search engines are using the Bing api, and just slightly modify the results.

I use Kagi ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Post reply on HN