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

Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 428 posts

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#351

Post by bigiain »

jollybean wrote: post #59
yobbo wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would anyone compete with a scam business model? Ad buyers don't care if it's effective. Or rather they need convincing-looking gibberish to convince their bosses that they're worthwhile. Bosses don't want to seem stupid and are afraid of missing out, so they let it continue. I suppose a free-speech distributed search service could make a difference if it was actually better than google. Imagine with distributed…

"Ad buyers don't care if it's effective." Yes, they definitely do.

Some do.

Others spend a million dollars a month on whatever stupid idea a team of Account Managers in $6000 suits/outfits with $500 haircuts pitch to them. And then congratulate themselves when the Analytics Department produces graphs of whatever meaningless metrics they can find or make up that go "up and to the right" for each month. And the Regional Ad Buyer and the Digital Agency will convince themselves that attributing every single sale to that advertising spend is valid and acceptable accounting practice, when most of the client's product practically sells itself. And they'll do this for a decade or more, until Global Head Office notice, then they'll pull the plug with 3 or 4 months outstanding unpaid, leading to ~100 people getting laid off with zero notice and tens of thousands of dollars of unpaid monthly salary and entitlements.

At least, that's how it happened last time I got burnt by it...

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#352

Post by OkayPhysicist »

spaced-out wrote: post #325
multiplegeorges wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Currently, companies have to put the needs of shareholders first above all else. It could be changed through legislation that companies need to put the needs of all *stake*holders first. This would mean chemical companies would have to take into account pollution past what is allowed by regulation, this would mean that Google would have to at least consider the well-being of web users as a whole when making decisions…

>It could be changed through legislation that companies need to put the needs of all stake holders first. The problem is that it's the shareholders who sign off on the CEO, upper management, and their salaries and bonuses. I don't see how you can incentivize people to not put the needs of those who control their paychecks above all else under this model.

You make those same shareholders liable for the crimes of their "employees". It could be as simple as "executing" companies, i.e., nationalizing/simply erasing companies for abusive behaviors, or it could be a more complicated weakening of the limited liability of corporations.

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#353

Post by 9387367 »

JustFinishedBSG wrote: post #55
SimeVidas wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe Google’s researchers are kept out of the loop.

Well I imagine so. But it still means google management decided to fund (relatively expensive) top notch research just to act as a front for their criminal operation.

Maybe Google’s managers are also kept out of the loop.

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#354

Post by salawat »

crawfordcomeaux wrote: post #346
salawat wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Needs of whom? How are mutually exclusive needs reconciled? It's not anywhere as easy or free of potential villainy as you think.

Needs of all. What is an example of a mutually exclusive need?

I need my privacy to be respected. Google et al. would beg to differ.

A certain debit card company needs people to overdraft and pay back their accounts to take profit. The overdrafter's need the card issuer to not lock them out or overpenalize so they can try to get out of dire financial straits.

The U.S. wants a fair, just legal system. Prosecutors and law enforcement need the slack to focus on only pursuing "the worst cases".

Balancing acts are a fact of life.

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#355

Post by foerbert »

yosito wrote: post #343
jl6 wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could refuse to hire anyone who has worked for ad-tech in recent history.

How does forcing people who recently made a bad judgement call to continue making a bad judgement call achieve anything positive?

Because it can influence the behavior of people who might be going into adtech. If working for adtech becomes known for coming with a cost of harming future career prospects outside of adtech, it becomes far less attractive even without having to adjust compensation. This is also the kind of thing can get associated with moral failings, which can create significant social costs to joining adtech as well.

None of this occurs if you just sit back and encourage people to get out of adtech and make it nice and easy. People will just decide to do it for "just a few years" so they can "make some money."

On top of all that, this sort of change doesn't happen instantly. It'll start slowing and the momentum will grow. People current in adtech will have a chance to see the writing on the wall and jump ship before it's more than a minor annoyance.

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#356

Post by gonzo41 »

kevinthew wrote: post #340
Havoc wrote: post #196

>The parties agreed up front on when and how often Facebook would bid in auctions, and when and how often Facebook would ultimately win. That sounds rather cartel-like

This sounds exactly like the LIBOR rigging scam, various commodity market scandals. People rightfully go to jail for this stuff -- meanwhile we see the big tech companies bid rig

Actually, we didn't see that many people go to jail for rigging the LIBOR rate. There were a few fall guys but a lot of people made a lot of money.

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#357

Post by Animats »

Sherman Act: "Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony."

People do go to prison for Sherman Act violations. Here are some older Department of Justice statistics.[1]

So when will we see the first arrests?

[1] https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/about/commissio...

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#358

Post by bardan »

monopoledance wrote: post #197
qnsi wrote: post #8

What can we as people in top 1% with 1) information about big tech abuses 2) skills to fix this do? Individually we can use browsers like firefox or brave and probably donate time or money to them, but I think it's not enough. I think we would need something like a movement against those abuses, but probably the biggest win would be a business model that could win with them in the free market. Is this possible? Has a…

Incentivize the economy to not overproduce bullshit ad nauseam. Vote with your wallet, and push for it culturally, or spiritually - offer alternative experiences and goals to consumerism. Stop working for companies producing products nobody asked for, which are made for “economic growth” as a goal in it self. (If your factual constraints allow for it.) As long as there is this enormous pressure to sell you ever more…

"Vote with your wallet" might as well be "stop thinking about it", especially when it comes to a niche site like Hacker News.

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#359

Post by charcircuit »

bigiain wrote: post #351
jollybean wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Ad buyers don't care if it's effective." Yes, they definitely do.

Some do. Others spend a million dollars a month on whatever stupid idea a team of Account Managers in $6000 suits/outfits with $500 haircuts pitch to them. And then congratulate themselves when the Analytics Department produces graphs of whatever meaningless metrics they can find or make up that go "up and to the right" for each month. And the Regional Ad Buyer and the Digital Agency will convince themselves that att…

This isn't the 1900s. You can measure how well an ad performs and how well it converts into a sale.

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#360

Post by bardan »

9387367 wrote: post #348
qnsi wrote: post #8

What can we as people in top 1% with 1) information about big tech abuses 2) skills to fix this do? Individually we can use browsers like firefox or brave and probably donate time or money to them, but I think it's not enough. I think we would need something like a movement against those abuses, but probably the biggest win would be a business model that could win with them in the free market. Is this possible? Has a…

Individually, we must build alternatives and don’t give up and if it works out, don’t sell out. Look at lichess.org, it’s possible.

"Don't sell out" is nice and easy until someone slaps fifty million dollars on the table.
Post reply on HN