European Commission fines Google €2.42B for abusing dominance

Post by lerpa » Wed, Jun 28, 2017, 10:27 AM UTC

Mahn wrote: post #387

zdkl wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a consumer, I have (much) more trust that my interests are advanced by the EU than google. This is an opinion which I don't feel the need to convert anyone to but I really don't understand the opposite view. Can someone explain why they believe google and other "emerging" power centers saveguard their interests better than the EU?

Personally, as an EU citizen, I don't believe that Google is advancing my interests and rights, but I also don't believe that the EU commission dictating what Google can or cannot do based on who is lobbying and how much money is at stake has the consumer's best interests in mind. To me these fines seem motivated by money, not consumer rights.

Post by lerpa » Wed, Jun 28, 2017, 10:34 AM UTC

throwawaymanbot wrote: post #432

Ajedi32 wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it benefit the consumer though? I fail to see how showing links to search results pages from other companies in response to a product query is better for consumers than just showing them a listing of the products they actually searched for. [Google's response][1] to this ruling suggests they have data which confirms this: > While some comparison shopping sites naturally want Google to show them more prominently,…

I feel it does benefit the consumer. You are assuming that google is going to show me the best search results etc for my query, while in reality they are displaying what suits them and their advertiser better. Which is great for google, not exactly great for my interests however.

Post by lerpa » Wed, Jun 28, 2017, 10:38 AM UTC

lkbm wrote: post #330

mythz wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The anti-competitive practices you're talking about is not being able to decide what content gets displayed on your own website, what relevant information you're allowed to show Users in response to their search results and being forced to give your competitors more prominence. AFAIK this has never been written into law or ruled illegal before.

Sounds a lot like deciding what programs are included in your operating system. Do you consider this materially different, and if so why?

Post by lerpa » Wed, Jun 28, 2017, 10:45 AM UTC

ableton wrote: post #648

throwaway2016a wrote: post #275

I might be in a minority here and I'll probably get down voted but this result scares me... and I used to be CTO one of those competing price comparison sites that show up lower in the results so if anyone should agree it should be me. While it made me angry when Google put their results above ours, I never questioned that they had a right to do that. It is their website. They are not a utility. At what point does a…

A lot of people wonder why anyone could vote for Brexit. This is exactly why. This kind of regulatory fever unnecessarily burdens people at all levels of society. These regulators are unelected, and so they can make terrible decisions with no accountability. These regulators have essentially said that google can't show ads for products on their site unless they do it in a specific way that also shows their competitor…

Post by eveningcoffee » Wed, Jun 28, 2017, 10:57 AM UTC

vinceguidry wrote: post #630

eveningcoffee wrote: post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if chickens could choose a farm, they would become customers? In addition - open air held chickens could run away but they choose not to.

Do Google users get slaughtered? I mean, that is why it's undesirable to be a chicken in a chicken farm, right? If it weren't for that, then choosing the farm you are on would be quite the desirable ability. What if all that happened on chicken farms was one of their feathers got plucked once in awhile?