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

461–470 of 510 posts

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

#461

Post by Jensson »

crowcroft wrote: post #176
hamp95 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On what planet is a loss of 70% of the resources to the matching process between buyers and sellers "incredibly efficient"? One where the market maker is taking up the cost of providing a market. E.g. Steam takes a 30% cut for providing the infrastructure required to distribute games. Some people/companies can do it for less but it is the best option for a majority of sellers. If the market maker did not the seller…

Are you saying that serving ads costs more than running a news site? This also neglects the fact that the programmatic market routes billions of dollars intended to be spent on real media (ad placements on real news websites etc), to fraudulent mobile apps and websites and bot traffic.

> Are you saying that serving ads costs more than running a news site?

Serving the ads is probably much more expensive than serving the news site, since there is a ton of heavy algorithms to determine what ads to show.

Total costs for each depends on how much it costed to make the news article so is hard to say.

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

#463

Post by CPLX »

carlosjobim wrote: post #445
CPLX wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I dislike Google more than most and would never buy nor sell ads with them, but they have no monopoly on advertising You’re commenting on an article with the title “Google is illegally monopolizing” which is reporting on the official verdict of a federal trial where Google was well represented and lost.

Monopoly is a real word with a real meaning. It doesn't matter what any kind of judge "decides", he does not have the authority to change the meanings of words according to his humors. Google might be doing anti-competitive or fraudulent actions, but let's use the proper terms in the proper places. Just like there is a difference between theft, burglary and robbery.

Monopoly, and the degree to which Google obtained a monopoly in the defined market examined in this case, is a legal question. So indeed it does matter what a judge decides after a trial where the evidence was examined and a conclusion reached.

You might even argue that there’s no other definition less abitrary than this one, and it’s your understanding of what the word means that needs revision.

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

#464

Post by econ »

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?

They didn't act alone, the paid number had to be approved by someone and the phone provider also had to accept the bill. I don't have numbers but since I know multiple people who got the strange phone bill my guess would be at least hundreds of thousands of succesful click thoughts. Some called the tax office regularly around the busiest time of the year before they got the bill and found out.

There are probably people with large phone bills who didn't notice and ones who thought the tax office was just expensive to call.

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

#465

Post by LunaSea »

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…

> If a service cannot be offered at a certain scale without such practices, it should not be offered at that scale.

That sounds like an opinion and one tha isn't shared by the hundreds of millions of users Google has o it's services.

The worst part is that I completely agree that advertisement and at the very least targeted advertisement, shouldn't exist.

Problem is that users prefer not paying in cash so companies find alternatives.

If advertisement or privacy really mattered for users, we would already have alternative Facebook, YouTube, etc, but it isn't and so we don't.

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

#466

Post by LunaSea »

troupo wrote: post #459
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…

> 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…

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

Well you're free to bring this up to the various data privacy national organisations in the EU.

But I see that we're moving goalposts.

> Have you provided sources for any of your claims?

One of many available links on Google:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016781162...

> ads require lifelong collection of any and all user data

Data collected has an expiration date. This is also part of GDPR compliance.

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

We're now going in circles, but essentially you're ad performance (brand attribution, clicks and conversion) will determine your expected purchase price per thousand impressions (CPM).

If your targeting isn't competitive, your inventory will not be bought or at a lower price.

This already happens for Safari and Firefox impressions.

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

#467

Post by porridgeraisin »

LunaSea wrote: post #465
porridgeraisin wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> If a service cannot be offered at a certain scale without such practices, it should not be offered at that scale. That sounds like an opinion and one tha isn't shared by the hundreds of millions of users Google has o it's services. The worst part is that I completely agree that advertisement and at the very least targeted advertisement, shouldn't exist. Problem is that users prefer not paying in cash so companies f…

Well, I don't think most people really understand the way ad-tech supports these services. I wager if you asked a few lay men they wouldn't even know google is an ad company(apart from YouTube ads)

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

#468

Post by guywithahat »

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.

Technically Yandex has it’s own index, although there’s debate on whether Eastern Europe counts as western in this context

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

#469

Post by milesrout »

shadowgovt wrote: post #421
milesrout wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't. Just like it wasn't sliding into fascism under Reagan, or Bush, or Clinton, or Bush 2, or Trump the first time, even though all the same people claimed that at the time.

Oh, good. I must have misunderstood the whole "disappeared to an El Salvadoran prison without due process" story. ... And you've gotten very close to the point without touching it. The country has been sliding, this whole time. Reagan arguably started the ball rolling. It just takes a long time to break down the democratic norms in a country this big. But they're broken down now.

You did misunderstand it. Applying the law of the land as it has stood and been applied for hundreds of years isn't fascist. If anyone thought the Alien Enemies Act were fascist they could have repealed it at any time since the 18th century.

Nobody is being "disappeared". The word you are looking for is "deported". Deportation isn't a new idea or a new thing.

>The country has been sliding, this whole time. Reagan arguably started the ball rolling.

No it hasn't. The US became freer under all of those presidents, except George W. Bush and his surveillance programmes. None of them are fascists. In no case did the country end up closer to fascism after they were in.

The US is nowhere near fascism. The fact anyone thinks it is near it is just more evidence of how uneducated Americans are about the rest of the world.

Trump hasn't damaged or broken down any "democratic norms".

Yeah he claimed his election loss was illegitimate. So did Hilary Clinton! (It was all just a Russian hoax remember? Trump is a Russian agent--all the debunked Russiagate claims). It isn't like he started a civil war over it, unless you're one of those people that believes the absurd propaganda that claims he instigated an attempted coup by giving a speech where he didn't tell anyone to do anything, suggest anyone do anything, or or in any other way encourage or instigate anything.

I'm sorry your preferred candidate lost. I get it. It happens to us all. It isn't the end of the world. Presidents are allowed to act in accordance with the law--including their own stretched interpretations of it until they get kicked back by the courts--and that includes all the things Trump is being accused of.

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

#470

Post by givemeethekeys »

xvector wrote: post #399
upmind wrote: post #398

Not to say Google is in the right but Google seems to be pitted against the entire industry constantly.

It's because Google is the face of big bad evil tech companies to normies that don't understand the first thing about technology.

Compared to Microsoft, Facebook, and Amazon, is Google really bigger, badder and eviler?
Post reply on HN