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

391–400 of 888 posts

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

#391

Post by KoolKat23 »

arghwhat wrote: post #159
mm263 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it still baffles me how bad the alternatives still are Kagi

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

I can understand your point.

The links points however are a bit ridiculous, they're entitled to their opinion but may be surprised to find people, at the businesses they use, have opinions that differ to theirs, and these businesses aren't always well-oiled machines.

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

#392

Post by BurningFrog »

hightrix wrote: post #235
loumaciel wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tons of small businesses rely on advertising. Tons of legit businesses only exist because online advertising became easy and widespread.

I fully understand that advertising enables many businesses. But there have been businesses based on lead pipes for drinking water plumbing, asbestos for residential insulation, and so on. You could make an argument that these technologies enabled many businesses as well. That doesn’t mean we should allow lead pipes for drinking water or to use asbestos in residential homes.

This is the worst attempt at logical reasoning I've seen in a while...

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

#393

Post by ensignavenger »

whatever1 wrote: post #330

Advertising venues that hold auctions need to be opened up to competition and provide full transpancy. These are markets that need regulations. Today ad auctioning is the ultimate scamming game. The force everyone to pay more, and nobody wins except the ad venue.

If the advertisers weren't winning, they would stop using those platforms.

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

#394

Post by someluccc »

christhecaribou wrote: post #387
someluccc wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s fucked that people start companies because they have the safety net of possibly being acquired even if the business doesn’t work out?

It’s suspicious that long term growth into an independent business isn’t realistically discussed as an option.

Because a lot of those business are only possible through monumental amounts of work and/or investment and selling is way easier than being an owner-operator for years under very probable risk of failure?

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

#395

Post by FrustratedMonky »

stego-tech wrote: post #188

Loving the discourse in the comments here. Speaking as someone who grew up alongside Google in a sense, I fall on the side of the "break it up" camp. It was novel at the time to have a single company so nicely provide us with everything digitally that we could need - G Suite, YouTube, Search, Maps, Advertising, Books, Reader, etc - but in hindsight, we gave too much power to too unaccountable an entity, who in turn u…

Breaking up AT&T lead to innovation.

GDP? Have people forgotten that a vibrant 'Free Market' requires breaking up monopolies?

When did supporting a 'Free Market' turn into, "don't touch our giant corps".

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

#396

Post by inopinatus »

sirspacey wrote: post #219
stego-tech wrote: post #188

Loving the discourse in the comments here. Speaking as someone who grew up alongside Google in a sense, I fall on the side of the "break it up" camp. It was novel at the time to have a single company so nicely provide us with everything digitally that we could need - G Suite, YouTube, Search, Maps, Advertising, Books, Reader, etc - but in hindsight, we gave too much power to too unaccountable an entity, who in turn u…

What MSFT learned from that was to open offices in Washington DC, lobby and sell to the federal gov. Hard to find the sense in this action.

one may as well complain that outlawing bribery caused everyone to attempt regulatory capture instead

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

#397

Post by nox101 »

pembrook wrote: post #368
lotsofpulp wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not “de facto” selling data about an individual to other businesses. No one can go to Google and buy information about a specific person.

I think we’re just arguing semantics. No, you can’t buy user data on 1 specific person (then again, there’s many examples of people buying ads on a persons name to catch them googling themselves), but you can buy user data on small groups of people.

No you can't. It's not semantics. It's reality. You can't buy data on people or groups of people from google any more than you can buy data on people from NBC, ABC, CBS. From TV stations you can buy ads during specific programs. That's it. From Google you can buy ads. You can not buy data. Data is something you can do something with on your own, analyse it, etc. Google does not give you data.

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

#398

Post by ta1243 »

dvngnt_ wrote: post #142
idle_zealot wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, I did. That's what the whole "surveillance system" part of the post was. Also I think advertisements in general are harmful.

how do people learn of products?

If ads were to benefit the customer, then they would be opt-in

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

#399

Post by inopinatus »

BurningFrog wrote: post #389
internet101010 wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have always thought the reason they became alphabet was because of the expectation that they would eventually get broken up and wanted a company for each letter.

They were also betting on Alpha!

come back 2003, all is forgiven

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

#400

Post by maccard »

svara wrote: post #243
gaiagraphia wrote: post #181

The free market's great IF there's competition. If the market's dead, it's time to reinject some life and keep the cogs turning. Scale's great, but it often comes with a societal cost. For every efficiency made, there's less agency and decent jobs to go round. Seems unfair to make such decisions ad-hoc though, and string it out through years of court cases and m/billions of lawyer fees. Why not establish rules of the…

Sort of playing devil's advocate here, but well run companies with near monopolies have on many occasions provided massive benefits that would not have been possible at smaller scale. Think of Bell Labs. Google has a number of Bell Labs style projects ongoing that massively benefit scientific research. Transformers, AlphaFold, etc. It's hard to see how a smaller, more focused company would be able to justify that typ…

> That said, I do see an issue where some of the smartest people get sucked up by big tech. Instead of working on fundamental advances in image processing they end up working on beauty filters for Instagram. That can't be right.

Can't you say the same thing if you go back 80 years and talk about the smartest minds in the world instead of working on energy for the masses they're working on the atomic bomb?

Post reply on HN