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

371–380 of 510 posts

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

#371

Post by lolinder »

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #218

I'm confused how this is a monopoly, is it just the "if we define a market as Google ads, then Google has a monopoly problem"? Like defining iOS apps as a market (and somehow failed)? Even if they play games with the auctions to keep the price up, at the end of the day X company is spending $5 per thousand clicks (or whatever) because they think it's worth it. Google can charge whatever they want, they run the platfo…

> There's other ad companies, there is no other way to get an app on iOS.

There is no other way to get an ad on sites that use Google Ads, just as there's no other way to get an app on iOS. These seem to be perfectly parallel to me: in either case you can pay a company to get access to their user base or you can choose to not pay that company to get access to their users. But if you make that choice, in either case you're locked out of a large market.

I agree with you that there's a strong argument to be made that the cases should have been decided the same way, but I also think they made the right call with Apple, so that leaves me reevaluating my gut instinct on this one.

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

#372

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

fn-mote wrote: post #310
hammock wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thank you very much for your comment. It used to be my favorite saying was "lie with statistics". I think it needs to be updated to "lie with citations".

Frankly, I think what the parent comment is doing is flat-out lying. Or else they were doing some kind of test to see if people actually read citations.

The last two you quote are especially egregious. E.g. saying "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... gives the clear implication that the link supports the antecedent. hammock's comment is complete bullshit.

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

#373

Post by pyrale »

ambicapter wrote: post #365
MichaelZuo wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This still doesn’t make sense. Since everyone values emotions differently... there would still need to be some intermediary, like money, for emotions to have any agreed upon value at all beyond narrow circles. Otherwise what’s stopping, e.g. nihlists, from valuing your emotions at zero or a negative value?

"The only way to understand emotions correctly is through money" What a take.

We need a market for emotions. Want a good laugh with your friends? That'll be $10. A moment of peace with your so? That'll be $100.

Rewards of up to $.50 for people willing to be scared to death (or, you know, moderate social media content).

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

#374

Post by barkerja »

gregw134 wrote: post #363
barkerja wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use Kagi ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Which uses Bing as its primary index

Source? I don't see any mention of that here: https://help.kagi.com/kagi/search-details/search-sources.htm...

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

#375

Post by [deleted] »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #321
hammock wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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... Note that this link says absolutely nothing to support the sentence before it. Which isn't a surprise given that limiting the number of bidders could hardly drive the prices those bidders are paying up . But the issue isn't even mentioned.

[deleted]

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

#376

Post by lupka »

whoknowsidont wrote: post #335
lupka wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The key factor is the timing. During the primary week where this product generates income, Google completely screwed me over with no warning and no answers about what's going on. I am of course looking into alternatives, but that takes time, and 3 days from now it'll be too late.

You have no contract with Google though. You're literally siphoning on what is a really low-barrier, dare I say free service. They didn't screw you over. You chose to use them. You didn't pay them, they're paying you. If you don't like that arrangement, feel free to join a partner agency that can buy and sell ads for you on the ad exchange or go to a different ad network. Then, if they do something you don't like, yo…

Your contention is that someone can't screw you over unless you're paying them?

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

#377

Post by astrange »

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.

Every ad on Reddit is currently from "hims" and has the message that your hair will fall out and your dick will stop working if you don't take their pills.

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

#378

Post by [deleted] »

pyrale wrote: post #373
ambicapter wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The only way to understand emotions correctly is through money" What a take.

We need a market for emotions. Want a good laugh with your friends? That'll be $10. A moment of peace with your so? That'll be $100. Rewards of up to $.50 for people willing to be scared to death (or, you know, moderate social media content).

[deleted]

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

#379

Post by paulryanrogers »

dumbledoren wrote: post #348
dragonwriter wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 n…

> 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. People always criticize that, and yet those systems delivered: They raised the Soviet citizens from mud huts to apartments within one generation. One thing that is prominent in the sto…

It can be argued those systems 'delivered' in spite of their cruel, indifferent, and centralized nature. Not solely because of them.

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

#380

Post by TZubiri »

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.

Doesn't that depend on how finely you want to break up the "parts"? Or on what dimension?

Google does search ads mostly, has competition with say, bing, amazon, chatgpt now.

On video ads they have competition with tiktok, netflix (even if they don't do ads I guess), and tv.

Maybe there's specific criteria that have legal precedent or sources, but I don't see it.

Post reply on HN