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

471–480 of 510 posts

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

#471

Post by bryan_w »

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?

Static text is much cheaper than dynamic content. News isn't anything that couldn't be served out of a .txt or sqlite CMS.

News providers seem wholly uninterested in providing anything better and actually competing with better content providers

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

#472

Post by rexpop »

upmind wrote: post #398

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

Well, yeah; according to the judge, they're engaged on monopolistic behavior. That's tautologically "against the entire industry."

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

#473

Post by shadowgovt »

milesrout wrote: post #469
shadowgovt wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ar…

They snatched somebody off the street. Put them on a plane to El Salvador. Without any due process . Then definitively said they made a mistake. And he's not back.

This isn't about preferred candidates losing. I've had preferred candidates lose multiple times in my life for various positions.

This is the culmination of the process that has been rolling through America responding to an attack on our home soil by creating a Department of Homeland security. This is the last chance for it to stop getting worse. There isn't another step beyond "They can disappear you from the street and drop you in a prison in El Salvador with no trial."

> the Alien Enemies Act

... Is for wartime. It's "Enemies" as in the phrase "Enemies at war, in peace friends".

Who are we at war with right now? If you believe "terrorism," you have understood my point.

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

#474

Post by MichaelZuo »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #457
MichaelZuo wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lik…

I’ll be charitable, what is your actual argument?

In case you didn’t see, the user has already claimed to believe the entire comment chain is irrelevant, so your a bit late.

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

#475

Post by owebmaster »

robertlagrant wrote: post #125
robertlagrant wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry I don't - I was purely prompting the idea that there should be no anti-trust related issue that would stop you switching.

A drop-in replacement for Adsense is a very good idea though. I wonder if someone knows of one here.

maybe a monopoly prevented its viability. Maybe.

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

#476

Post by owebmaster »

aprilthird2021 wrote: post #24

If the Meta case goes this way too, the ripple effects could be huge. Might affect the bay area, startup scene and a lot of others in ways we can't even grasp yet. All we can do is wait and see..

If Google and Meta are split in 3 parts each, all laid off people will be hired back fast.

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

#477

Post by xvector »

givemeethekeys wrote: post #470
xvector wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The average person sees them all as big bad and evil, and they all must be taken down, because what have they done for humanity!?

This is truly how the average person outside of the tech bubble thinks.

The general public collectively has the memory of a goldfish, and seems to have the strongest opinions about things it understands the least.

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

#478

Post by LunaSea »

porridgeraisin wrote: post #467
LunaSea wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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)

A few years ago, a large publisher (Persgroep) in the Netherlands made a study comparing user preferences between two advertisement solutions, one would be a traditional personal data-based targeting solution and one privacy preserving solution (SOLID).

User ended up preferring the classic version, even when they were informed of its inner workings.

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

#479

Post by BlueTemplar »

ajross wrote: post #432
BlueTemplar wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is like looking at a farm overrun by weeds but doing nothing using the pretext that just removing one of them isn't going to fix the problem.

No, it's like refusing to use Agent Orange to kill the weeds for fear of poisoning the neighboring farms. You walked right into that one, sorry.

I guess we might have a mismatch in values.

As you hint at it, "the World Wide Web as an application platform" specifically happened more because Google was wrestling with Microsoft over the future of personal computing than because of its inherent qualities. (And then they both got sidelined by Apple's iPhone, but Google (unlike Microsoft) did manage to both enter that battlefield and hold that front.)

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

#480

Post by crowcroft »

bryan_w wrote: post #471
crowcroft wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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? Static text is much cheaper than dynamic content. News isn't anything that couldn't be served out of a .txt or sqlite CMS. News providers seem wholly uninterested in providing anything better and actually competing with better content providers

Assuming the content is $0
Post reply on HN