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

U.S. accuses Google of abusing monopoly in ad technology

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 266 posts

Re: U.S. accuses Google of abusing monopoly in ad technology

#71

Post by xxpor »

xvector wrote: post #50
nus07 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/12/06/lina-khans-bat... For more context. A long but good read on the current FTC chairman.

Lina Khan may have written great papers but she isn't fit for the job. She harbors a hate for big tech and cannot be impartial in her dealings. See her recent attempt to prevent Meta from acquiring Within. There is no sane, level-headed case that could possibly paint this acquisition as an antitrust violation. Even most legal experts will agree that Lina Khan's case is a stretch at best. It's clear that this case is…

The FTC chairperson is a part of the Executive branch, not a judge. It's not her job to be impartial; she's allowed to have a point of view.

Re: U.S. accuses Google of abusing monopoly in ad technology

#72

Post by basch »

from wrote: post #60
basch wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 2017, Lina M. Khan, at the age of 27, published Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox. It said everyone was getting antitrust wrong, and there were other ways giant conglomerates were harming competition. Traditionally, unless the consumer was harmed through short term price fixing, just about anything was allowed to fly. The paper took the legal world by storm, and two years ago, she was nominated, confirmed, and appointed…

> Lina M. Khan, at the age of 27, published Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox Is this a puff piece? She's just some government employee - she doesn't produce anything. It remains to be seen whether her aggressive interpretation of antitrust law will actually benefit consumers. We can split up Google into 100 companies and then we'll find out that the bales of cash advertising produces are no longer subsidizing the less prof…

I was casually pointing out someone comparatively green was in charge now, as opposed to an experienced tenured dogmatic bureaucrat. I left it ambiguous whether inexperience would be a boon to free thinking and a new era or a hinderance and burden to the economy. Maybe things have been being done the way they were "always" done, for a reason. Take it as a rorschach test.

Re: U.S. accuses Google of abusing monopoly in ad technology

#73

Post by shadowgovt »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #68
basch wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 2017, Lina M. Khan, at the age of 27, published Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox. It said everyone was getting antitrust wrong, and there were other ways giant conglomerates were harming competition. Traditionally, unless the consumer was harmed through short term price fixing, just about anything was allowed to fly. The paper took the legal world by storm, and two years ago, she was nominated, confirmed, and appointed…

Standard Oil kept the price of oil nice and low.

And the quality high. The name "standard" was a reference to standards of measure and control; the implication in the name was "We're the brand that won't blow up your house when you use it."

Re: U.S. accuses Google of abusing monopoly in ad technology

#74

Post by gsatic »

steveBK123 wrote: post #28
ajross wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I hope something comes of this, but other than a change in administration, what's new on this in the last decade? Hasn't Google essentially controlled most of online advertising for eons? As the article points out, "preventing monopolies" is not the prima facie goal of antitrust law as traditionally interpreted. Monopolies are bad because of their effects on the market (e.g. they can raise prices higher than a comp…

The US has, for maybe 30 years or so, looked past the traditional trust busting intention of anti-trust (hey, it's in the name!) laws - preventing monopolies. The more modern interpretation has basically been "monopolies are ok if it lowers consumer prices", which sort of never made sense. Once you finish strangling all your competition, wouldn't you then raise prices? And then what, the government lets them do that…

Thrown out of the window and replaced with what?

Re: U.S. accuses Google of abusing monopoly in ad technology

#76

Post by nvrmnd »

jonas21 wrote: post #62

Ah, great! Maybe this will finally break up Google's monopoly and make ads cheaper and affordable to everyone who wants to run them.

Joking aside, what this could mean is a larger percentage of ad revenue shared with smaller publishers (website and mobile apps). The current situation is not entirely unlike the app-store cut these companies take.

Re: U.S. accuses Google of abusing monopoly in ad technology

#77

Post by scarface74 »

shadowgovt wrote: post #70
mike10921 wrote: post #43

Will likely result in some sum of x millions in fines. This will make zero difference in Google's control over search and anything related. We all seen this movie multiple times and end is always the same..

Not for an antitrust lawsuit. The remedy for antitrust is divestiture; if found guilty and the judge assigns that penalty, Google can't just pay their way out of it; they'd have to shut down / slice off into an independent company (probably) DoubleClick and some other acquisitions. Think less "EU fair practices violations" and more "Ma Bell breakup." The difference is that the EU lacks criminal authority (or jurisdic…

What does a divestiture of Google’s ad business when their entire business is selling ads?

Re: U.S. accuses Google of abusing monopoly in ad technology

#79

Post by steveBK123 »

gsatic wrote: post #74
steveBK123 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has, for maybe 30 years or so, looked past the traditional trust busting intention of anti-trust (hey, it's in the name!) laws - preventing monopolies. The more modern interpretation has basically been "monopolies are ok if it lowers consumer prices", which sort of never made sense. Once you finish strangling all your competition, wouldn't you then raise prices? And then what, the government lets them do that…

Thrown out of the window and replaced with what?

Litigation

Re: U.S. accuses Google of abusing monopoly in ad technology

#80

Post by cmrdporcupine »

basch wrote: post #61
xvector wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lina Khan may have written great papers but she isn't fit for the job. She harbors a hate for big tech and cannot be impartial in her dealings. See her recent attempt to prevent Meta from acquiring Within. There is no sane, level-headed case that could possibly paint this acquisition as an antitrust violation. Even most legal experts will agree that Lina Khan's case is a stretch at best. It's clear that this case is…

There is a point where changing the rules now appears to benefit incumbents, despite them being the targets here. Nobody new will be able to grow this way to compete with existing large players. If they cant acquire small things, they will just be forced to clone them, yet the smaller tier players wont be able to "just clone things." Instagram falls into the same category. When Mark acquired it, it was tiny. He is wh…

I don't think your analogy holds here; Instagram was already an active and popular social network before Facebook acquired it, not a "camera app." Did it grow? Certainly. While we don't know what would have happened to it had FB not bought it, it's quite possible FB bought it precisely because it was growing and becoming 'cool.'
Post reply on HN