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

451–460 of 510 posts

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

#451

Post by porridgeraisin »

LunaSea wrote: post #431
porridgeraisin wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, if they are so unscrupulously willing to employ dark patterns, I can get pretty competitive :-)

[flagged]

???

im not talking about piracy here - I pay for multiple streaming services and yt music provided the resulting experience is ad free.

But ads on your news/shopping website? Regardless of if I pay or not I'm gonna get upsells and ads. That simply does not fly. In any case, intrusive ads are a no-no. If your platform utilizes intrusive ads, I have no remorse for any loss incurred on your part.

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

#452

Post by porridgeraisin »

LunaSea wrote: post #448
troupo wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I could provide a long answer but the gist of it is that the study is flawed. Show me a non-flawed study that shows you need vast amounts of user data and tracking, for each user, throughout their lifetime to deliver ads > No, it didn't. Yes, yes it did. The skyrocketing revenue is attributable to increased internet usage across the globe, and Google outright owning a large chunk of it. > It does because contextual…

> Yes, yes it did. The skyrocketing revenue is attributable to increased internet usage across the globe, and Google outright owning a large chunk of it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. > Example: if you collect and sell vast amounts of sensitive user data without user's consent The users do give consent and this is handled by Consent Management Platforms and passed in the programmatic advertisem…

> Are users prepared to pay for the difference?

If a service cannot be offered at a certain scale without such practices, it should not be offered at that scale. Before you start talking about how this enabled google's innovations, remember that the path we have taken to our current innovations is not the only path that could have been taken. By correctly squashing out immoral avenues like today's ad tech, we lay the path for the same innovations to happen taking a different, more ethical path. Sure, it could be that that would take more time and certain innovations would be delayed by an entire era[1], but note that we could also be going 5x faster than today w.r.t TPUs or whatever if we enslaved and forced enough people to work for Google's ML infrastructure team and nobody/nothing else. But we don't do that, do we?

[1] on the flip side, certain innovations may also come an era early

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

#453

Post by luckylion »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #418
econ wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was most impressed by a Google Ad that showed up if you searched for the Dutch tax office. It would only show the name "Tax office" with a free to call phone number under it. Only the hyperlink pointed at a paid number 90 cent per minute. Depending on how busy it is or how exotic your question one can easily be on hold for an hour or two. Then you get the bill and pay 54 euro per hour. Google thought this was a gre…

Jesus. What a story! Is that even legal in Netherlands?

Google let similar things run in Germany that were impersonating government offices (which is illegal in multiple ways), and they never lifted a finger when the malicious ads were reported, because they still made money in the end.

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

#454

Post by dumbledoren »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #379
dumbledoren wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> cruel

If the US killing people when they cant pay for healthcare or pushing the homeless outside city centers in the winter to have them freeze to death does not make capitalism 'cruel', then those systems werent cruel either.

Doublespeak poisons the mind.

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

#456

Post by fsckboy »

dragonwriter wrote: post #415
fsckboy wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the real world critics of crony capitalism also coined the term socialism and then set about forming sociopathic totalitarian states and started slaughtering, torturing and starving people. what's your point? and by socialism i mean the 4th international, the 3rd international, et al, whence were spawned many socialist parties that called themselves socialists, but which are in full agreement with what casual observe…

> the real world critics of crony capitalism also coined the term socialism and then set about forming sociopathic totalitarian stat No, they didn't; the people who did the latter were different people, decades later than the former, who, despite claiming ideological continuity, departed radically from the theory of the former. The original critics saw capitalism as (like socialism, but prior to it) an imperfect but…

no Leninist would every acknowledge the 4th international.

i won't argue the rest of the flaws in your response because you are clearly a bitter-ender

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

#457

Post by Dylan16807 »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #404
pclmulqdq wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't give a shit what advertisers want. I was merely pointing out to someone in the ad business that I don't want to see relevant ads when they made the statement that I do. This is something that people in advertising say a lot, but it's generally not true. I do not want or benefit from you having "better" ad targeting - I will find your product if I want it without the sales pitch.

Why does your individual opinion matter to Google (or advertisers or their markets) then? It’s probably not even possible for decision makers to discern it from noise.

The advertisers are the ones trying to claim that it's a win-win situation because people like relevant ads.

Pointing out that many people don't like relevant ads is then a significant thing to acknowledge.

You're acting like pclmulqdq brought up the idea out of nowhere, which is very much not the case.

What people think about ads does matter, and does affect the bottom line.

And it's just annoying for you to act like the dislike is just an "individual opinion" but the "people like relevant ads" claim isn't equally anecdotal.

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

#458

Post by paulryanrogers »

dumbledoren wrote: post #454
paulryanrogers wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> cruel If the US killing people when they cant pay for healthcare or pushing the homeless outside city centers in the winter to have them freeze to death does not make capitalism 'cruel', then those systems werent cruel either. Doublespeak poisons the mind.

I'm not trying to defend capitalism here, so not sure where you think you see doublespeak

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

#459

Post by troupo »

LunaSea wrote: post #448
troupo wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I could provide a long answer but the gist of it is that the study is flawed. Show me a non-flawed study that shows you need vast amounts of user data and tracking, for each user, throughout their lifetime to deliver ads > No, it didn't. Yes, yes it did. The skyrocketing revenue is attributable to increased internet usage across the globe, and Google outright owning a large chunk of it. > It does because contextual…

> Yes, yes it did. The skyrocketing revenue is attributable to increased internet usage across the globe, and Google outright owning a large chunk of it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. > Example: if you collect and sell vast amounts of sensitive user data without user's consent The users do give consent and this is handled by Consent Management Platforms and passed in the programmatic advertisem…

> The users do give consent and this is handled by Consent Management Platforms

No. The users are tricked into giving "consent" through a plethora of dark patterns.

When dark patterns are removed, users refuse to give the information

> But it isn't, and if you are making claims, please provided sources.

Have you provided sources for any of your claims?

> Are users prepared to pay for the difference?

Still waiting for any source of your claims that:

- targeted ads are more effective

- ads require lifelong collection of any and all user data

- that without pervasive and invasive tracking ads are somehow prohibitively expensive

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

#460

Post by troupo »

porridgeraisin wrote: post #452
LunaSea wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, yes it did. The skyrocketing revenue is attributable to increased internet usage across the globe, and Google outright owning a large chunk of it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. > Example: if you collect and sell vast amounts of sensitive user data without user's consent The users do give consent and this is handled by Consent Management Platforms and passed in the programmatic advertisem…

> Are users prepared to pay for the difference? If a service cannot be offered at a certain scale without such practices, it should not be offered at that scale. Before you start talking about how this enabled google's innovations, remember that the path we have taken to our current innovations is not the only path that could have been taken. By correctly squashing out immoral avenues like today's ad tech, we lay the…

> Before you start talking about how this enabled google's innovations

To whit:

Most the big projects Google started or acquired, and that are still available today, Google started or acquired before targeted advertising. Google itself, Docs, Youtube, Cloud, Android...

Targeted advertising is not a requirement for innovation

Post reply on HN