Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules • Hacker News Board

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

#481

Post by crowcroft » Sat, Apr 19, 2025, 3:51 PM UTC

TZubiri wrote: post #382

crowcroft wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When a media buyer puts $1.00 in on one side of the system, on average only $0.60 makes it to the publisher. In some cases less than $0.50 gets to them. Advertising is an intentionally complex system so that companies can clip the ticket at multiple stages throughout the process. Google should be broken up, but the whole ad tech system needs to go into the bin if these problems are going to ever get fixed. https://ww…

The argument here being that the fee is too high? I don't think prices being too high is a strong argument of the existence of a monopoly, but it might be of the exploitation of one.

There's been a few instances where internal communications have leaked showing Google intentionally rigging auction mechanics to inflate CPCs. It's not just the fees being high.

https://upriseup.co.uk/blog/something-doesnt-ad-up-google-ad...

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

#482

Post by carlosjobim » Sat, Apr 19, 2025, 4:14 PM UTC

CPLX wrote: post #463

carlosjobim wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your argument is simply appeal to authority. The truth is still the truth no matter what men do or decide. If the judge calls Google a monopoly in advertising, he is obviously wrong, and nobody has any duty to pretend that he is right. Both you and I can think for ourselves.

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

#483

Post by a123b456c » Sat, Apr 19, 2025, 5:34 PM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #372

fn-mote wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 agr…

You could just read the lawsuit. It has everything you're looking for, sourced from internal Google communications, and is written in plain language. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/press-release/file/1563...

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

#484

Post by computerthings » Sat, Apr 19, 2025, 6:05 PM UTC

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…

[dead]

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

#485

Post by Dylan16807 » Sat, Apr 19, 2025, 6:46 PM UTC

MichaelZuo wrote: post #474

Dylan16807 wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They specifically said their original point still stands, and I agree with them.

> what is your actual argument

Was it not clear? Okay I can try again.

When advertisers claim that relevant ads are something people want, that's very far from being universally true. Lots of people don't want that. Don't let them use that unsupported claim to support tracking.

Note that the desires of advertisers are not part of this particular argument. It's a simple claim and counterclaim.

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

#486

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Apr 19, 2025, 6:47 PM UTC

whoknowsidont wrote: post #334

xigency wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you misunderstand what 'dumping' means in this market context. Sure, free software like Linux is great. But if you didn't have that preconceived notion, a competitor dumping free software on the market to make others' initiatives unprofitable would look like an anti-trust violation, rather than a charitable act of community.

I understand perfectly fine. I think your statement however is quite ignorant about the state of things at the time these actions were taken. Do yourself a favor and research a little bit.

[deleted]

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

#487

Post by CPLX » Sun, Apr 20, 2025, 1:12 AM UTC

carlosjobim wrote: post #482

CPLX wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your argument is simply appeal to authority. The truth is still the truth no matter what men do or decide. If the judge calls Google a monopoly in advertising, he is obviously wrong, and nobody has any duty to pretend that he is right. Both you and I can think for ourselves.

Yes my argument is an appeal to authority. That’s the right approach to answering a legal question.

An appeal to authority is an excellent way to argue when the authority in question has the ability to determine and define the answer in question.

Calling a company an illegal monopoly at the ci conclusion of a trial is analogous to calling a person a convicted murderer because a court says they are.

Do you have your own definition of a kilometer too?

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

#488

Post by porridgeraisin » Sun, Apr 20, 2025, 5:31 AM UTC

LunaSea wrote: post #478

porridgeraisin wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"publishing" They are an ad company.

"Ad company does survey confirming that people like their ads and definitely don't want an alternative"

is not the win you think it is. Are you hearing yourself?

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

#489

Post by dumbledoren » Sun, Apr 20, 2025, 7:59 AM UTC

paulryanrogers wrote: post #458

dumbledoren wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

The 'cruel' adjective. If capitalism is not cruel, then such a criticism cannot be made against socialism, communism etc.

And if one would bring up 'political persecution', capitalism persecutes the politically non-compliant harder than any eastern bloc country - and did so both in the 1950s and still does it today.

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

#490

Post by LunaSea » Sun, Apr 20, 2025, 9:00 AM UTC

porridgeraisin wrote: post #488

LunaSea wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"publishing" They are an ad company. "Ad company does survey confirming that people like their ads and definitely don't want an alternative" is not the win you think it is. Are you hearing yourself?

Well I seem to be the only bringing proof and understanding into this debate.

You're free to step in at any time with actual viable alternatives, studies, etc.

May I remind you once more that the possibility to create this magical Internet world you guys live in is already there but somehow nobody builds or uses it. Maybe there is a good reason for this?