Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google's response to the European Commission fine

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 237 posts

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#71

Post by weberc2 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #61
hoorayimhelping wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd encourage you (and everyone) to read the comments in the other thread happening today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14643712 You'll see people baffled by this decision and generally happy with the service and products google offers. It's just a reminder to remember that what doesn't work for you may be pure bliss for other people.

GP wasn't complaining about product issues (which were discussed in the other thread), but about the doublespeak used in Google's response.

Doesn't doublespeak imply a self-contradiction? At any rate, I thought the OP was complaining about "spin", in which case the reply is valid, as it isn't spin; there's just multiple valid ways of interpreting Google's behaviors, and which interpretation you choose depends largely on how satisfied you are with their business model.

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#73

Post by VMG »

rini17 wrote: post #10
VMG wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can the EU legitimately complain that tech companies prefer to operate outside then?

> tech companies prefer to operate outside Any examples please?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_informatio...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_Internet_compa...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_software_c...

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#74

Post by dontnotice »

pulse7 wrote: post #69
dontnotice wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's weird that someone commenting here never read corporate PR before, I guess it's not any weirder than the proliferation of anti capitalist sentiment in a startup incubator community section. Still it's not nearly as nonsensical as this case in which a website operator is being fined billions for not featuring other website some more.

"for not featuring other website some more" => for not featuring other website equally as own ones...

My point is that it's nonsensical that they would have to feature anyone at all.

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#75

Post by anonymousab »

hoorayimhelping wrote: post #41
andrepd wrote: post #14

> (...) connecting our users with thousands of advertisers, large and small, in ways that are useful for both . We truly live in the age of spinning, of euphemisms, where words lose all their meaning. All-pervasive advertising, the most insidious technique of consumer capitalism, is now an idealistic connecting of people (why, rather than fining us indeed they should be thanking thanking us for that, they seem to say…

I'd encourage you (and everyone) to read the comments in the other thread happening today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14643712 You'll see people baffled by this decision and generally happy with the service and products google offers. It's just a reminder to remember that what doesn't work for you may be pure bliss for other people.

I think that is more that some people find great value in Google's product integration, such as getting map or flight results from the main search, and they are unsure as to how Google can continue to offer such a convenience in light of this decision.

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#76

Post by dontnotice »

pulse7 wrote: post #70
dontnotice wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Common origin does not disprove animosity or self interest. One wonders what NewsCorp or Oracle concerns are in ecommerce search, but then you remember that they had well publicized scuffles with Google. The last record fine was against a US company, as were recent tax related fines, patterns are harder to refute.

"patterns are harder to refute" -> there is also a pattern, how big US tech companies avoid tax payments in EU, it even has a name ("double irish sandwich")

Which is legal. The Apple case was about "illegal state aid" of all things.

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#77

Post by tyingq »

ko27 wrote: post #11

I think it would be worth adding these opinions of other US-based companies: "A number of US companies - including Oracle - published a joint letter addressed to Vestager this week in support of penalties against Google for “anticompetitive conduct.” It said: "As you near final decisions in the Shopping and Android cases, Google and its allies will no doubt continue to press through its lobbying and public relations…

Also worth noting that the FTC investigators reached the same conclusion as the EU.

http://graphics.wsj.com/google-ftc-report/

"Staff concludes that Google's conduct has resulted - and will result - in real harm to consumers and to innovation in the online search and advertising markets. Google has strengthened its monopolies over search and search advertising through anticompetitive means..."

Their bosses, though, voted 5-0 to not take action as recommended.

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#78

Post by Aissen »

Note that this happens just as Google scored a small win in France: a french tribunal advised the authorities that Google's tax evasion scheme with Ireland might be perfectly legal, and it might not have to pay the €1.15B the French authorities says they owe for 2005-2010.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-14/google-ge...

Note that this is far from the end on this story. But it just shows the sheer scale out of which EU countries are being "optimized" out of tax revenue. Add the monopoly abuse to the mix, and they have every right to make sure the law is respected.

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#79

Post by andrepd »

dontnotice wrote: post #67
andrepd wrote: post #14

> (...) connecting our users with thousands of advertisers, large and small, in ways that are useful for both . We truly live in the age of spinning, of euphemisms, where words lose all their meaning. All-pervasive advertising, the most insidious technique of consumer capitalism, is now an idealistic connecting of people (why, rather than fining us indeed they should be thanking thanking us for that, they seem to say…

It's weird that someone commenting here never read corporate PR before, I guess it's not any weirder than the proliferation of anti capitalist sentiment in a startup incubator community section. Still it's not nearly as nonsensical as this case in which a website operator is being fined billions for not featuring other website some more.

I don't see your point. It's odd to call out the corporate doublespeak because... everyone does it?

And I'm thankful that the all-pervasive Google behemoth is subject to some regulations, thank you very much.

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#80

Post by staltz »

andrepd wrote: post #14

> (...) connecting our users with thousands of advertisers, large and small, in ways that are useful for both . We truly live in the age of spinning, of euphemisms, where words lose all their meaning. All-pervasive advertising, the most insidious technique of consumer capitalism, is now an idealistic connecting of people (why, rather than fining us indeed they should be thanking thanking us for that, they seem to say…

This kind of rhetoric is coming often from tech giants, travestying words and claiming the exact opposite of what they do in practice.

There is an interesting parallel to make here with the Soviet Union: they used to set up puppet states which were nominally sovereign, independent, "people's republic", etc, while in practice were obviously just colonies.

I guess extremely powerful institutions founded on abusive practices end up having to cover up their abuse, and an effective way is to confuse the common person into thinking that maybe they're not that bad after all.

Another tactic is to dress your institutions with good causes as much as possible. You could see this in Google I/O, they often used examples such as curing cancer as applications of their AI infrastructure.

If your institution is 10% good and 90% bad, you can downplay your bad acts and loudly campaign about your good doing and you may be able to shift the public perception of your monopolistic institution to look more like 70% good, 30% bad and win the support of majority of the people, which usually have a neutral stance.

Post reply on HN