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

US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

storage.courtlistener.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

981–990 of 1001 posts

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#981

Post by scarface_74 »

FilosofumRex wrote: post #710
JustExAWS wrote: post #682

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So out of the list, how has Google behaved “anti competitively” in any of these? - Google Maps - Google Mail - Google Drive - Google Docs - Google Groups - Google Forms - Google Cloud - Google OAuth - Google Analytics - Android - Android Auto - Fitbit - Google Fi - Google Fiber - Google Flights - Google Translate - Google Pay - Waymo

Horizontal integration is a tried and true strategy of monopolies. Standard Oil bought or bankrupt competitive refineries, pipeline companies, regional railroads, even mom&pop gas stations & groceries often at considerable costs to ensure no part of the oil supply chain was profitable for its competitors.

Are you saying Google controls the internet? Search? Mobile? gmail?

There is absolutely nothing that Google has that can’t be avoided - or that’s even best in breed. Even Google Search hasn’t been good in years. My default search engine is now ChatGPT with web search.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#982

Post by p1necone »

izacus wrote: post #801
p1necone wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bulk of Android is open source, the only proprietary bits are the google services.

So you basically want to destroy a company because they develop the product as opensource?

No? I have no idea how you came to that conclusion based on the contents of this thread.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#983

Post by 0xDEAFBEAD »

tsimionescu wrote: post #958
0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #931

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think if I ate a lot of eggs, and egg cooker could be very handy. If Google can use targeting advertising to identify customers who eat a lot of eggs, and tell them about the existence of egg cookers, that's a win for everyone except the chickens.

I don't know for sure, but I'd bet egg cookers aren't a useful tool for anyone , compared to the alternatives (boiling the egg without taking up extra room in your kitchen). But even if you're right about this being useful to some people, advertising is not the right tool for discovering this: advertising will always exaggerate any positive of something and downplay any negative. The goal of advertising, and the ince…

>I don't know for sure, but I'd bet egg cookers aren't a useful tool for anyone, compared to the alternatives (boiling the egg without taking up extra room in your kitchen).

Maybe they've got a big kitchen.

>advertising is not the right tool for discovering this

What is the right tool? How would new products find customers without advertising? I think any alternative would be much slower and less effective.

>advertising will always exaggerate any positive of something and downplay any negative.

Customers know this. You're underrating how smart customers are.

>If it weren't explicitly outlawed, advertisers would probably add "enlarges your penis and cures cancer" to every single product ad.

You really think people are stupid and they need someone like you to protect them from their stupidity, huh? Of course advertisers wouldn't do such a thing. It would be terrible for brand equity.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#984

Post by 1123581321 »

int_19h wrote: post #965
1123581321 wrote: post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Customers frequently prefer cheap bundles. The right time for an antitrust decision is often when the company is large and stops behaving competitively.

Customers acting individually have a short-term perspective which leads them to prefer low prices in general, which is why strategies like price dumping work - yet they are illegal for a reason. The problem is that once the monopolist is entrenched and all competition killed off, those cheap bundles stop being cheap. Hence why you need someone to take the long term view and nip these kinds of things in the bud. A dem…

A democratically elected government won’t force prices to be raised in a market if consumers benefit and the regulator or court finds marginal costs to also be driven down by scale.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#985

Post by [deleted] »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #843
dreghgh wrote: post #767

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube spent years showing children damaging content through an algo until the parental boycott became so bad that they had to do something, worried that a generation was going to grow up not addicted to their content.

Find a billion dollar company thats never done anything wrong and Ill find you a pig that flys.

[deleted]

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#986

Post by pbhjpbhj »

scarface_74 wrote: post #630
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, as copyright is a non-natural right, we should limit it for films/tv/shows such that whatever price it is sold for, then it is made available for any distributor to sell for after a very limited monopoly period (1 year from release, say, reflecting the current market in which films go from cinema to TV streaming platforms in a few weeks). This would apply to all distributors over X users and/or Y revenue…

You have no right to other people’s work and content writers get residuals.

No one has a natural right to have their work protected by copyright. Copyright is supposed to be a deal to encourage creativity _and_ benefit the public domain.

Capitalists have distorted it to be a means to pay the producers (ie capital holders) over-and-over whilst eroding the public domain.

The default position is if you (a creator) make a work available anyone can copy it, alter it, resell it for free. I don't think that is right, but what we currently have is IMO not a sufficient benefit to the public.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#987

Post by tsimionescu »

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #983
tsimionescu wrote: post #958

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know for sure, but I'd bet egg cookers aren't a useful tool for anyone , compared to the alternatives (boiling the egg without taking up extra room in your kitchen). But even if you're right about this being useful to some people, advertising is not the right tool for discovering this: advertising will always exaggerate any positive of something and downplay any negative. The goal of advertising, and the ince…

>I don't know for sure, but I'd bet egg cookers aren't a useful tool for anyone, compared to the alternatives (boiling the egg without taking up extra room in your kitchen). Maybe they've got a big kitchen. >advertising is not the right tool for discovering this What is the right tool? How would new products find customers without advertising? I think any alternative would be much slower and less effective. >advertis…

> What is the right tool? How would new products find customers without advertising? I think any alternative would be much slower and less effective.

I'm not sure, but I don't think that speed is a major concern here. Even if it becomes harder to introduce new product categories, that would be a small price to pay for stopping the huge waste of money (and CO2) that advertising tries to induce.

Most likely, professional product review sites are a better solution, with a good enough legal framework to prevent them from becoming direct advertising or attack sites. Ultimately, what you need is an impartial expert trying a product and reporting their experience.

> You really think people are stupid and they need someone like you to protect them from their stupidity, huh?

No, I just think systematically lying to people is a bad thing and should be legally discouraged. False advertising is a huge problem, even with laws that try to punish it.

And sure, maybe they wouldn't put those specific claims on every product, but you can bet that without false advertising laws, you'd see much wilder claims in every single ad than you do today.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#988

Post by maleldil »

Velorivox wrote: post #442
eastbound wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On every Kagi comment, there is “Have you used Kagi recently? It’s improved a lot!” — to the level that I suspect they have bots to upgrade the brand image, at least to search which comments to respond do. I’m saying that because yes, I’ve used Kagi recently, and I switch back to Google every single time because Kagi can’t find anything. Kagi is to Google what Siri is to ChatGPT. Siri can’t even answer “What time is…

> I suspect they have bots to upgrade the brand image I disagree with the conclusion but I agree with the premise. Man is a rationalizing animal, and one way to validate one’s choice in paying for a search engine (whether it is better or not) is to get others to use it as well. Kagi is also good at PR, they were able to spin a hostile metering plan as a lenient subscription plan. Word of mouth is often more prevalent…

> one way to validate one’s choice in paying for a search engine (whether it is better or not) is to get others to use it as well.

It's not so much validating, but I'm hoping they grow so I can keep using their service. It would suck for them to close shop because they never got popular enough to be sustainable.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#989

Post by scarface_74 »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #986
scarface_74 wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have no right to other people’s work and content writers get residuals.

No one has a natural right to have their work protected by copyright. Copyright is supposed to be a deal to encourage creativity _and_ benefit the public domain. Capitalists have distorted it to be a means to pay the producers (ie capital holders) over-and-over whilst eroding the public domain. The default position is if you (a creator) make a work available anyone can copy it, alter it, resell it for free. I don't t…

Why would I spend time producing something if I don’t get paid for it? If you want the public to benefit from something you create, you have the right to go out there and spend your own money to doing so

The open source movement didn’t ask to get other people to write stuff and give it away.

I’m assuming you don’t work for free, why should creators?

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#990

Post by zrm »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #956
zrm wrote: post #887

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That doesn't work at all when the scraper rapidly rotates IPs from different ASNs because you can't differentiate the legitimate from the abusive traffic on a per-request basis. Well sure you can. If it's requesting something which is allowed in robots.txt, it's a legitimate request. It's only if it's requesting something that isn't that you have to start trying to decide whether to filter it or not. What does it m…

> If it's requesting something which is allowed in robots.txt, it's a legitimate request. An abusive scraper is pushing over your boxes. It is intentionally circumventing rate limits and (more generally) accurate attribution of the traffic source. In this example you have deemed such behavior to be abusive and would like to put a stop to it. Any given request looks pretty much normal. The vast majority are coming fro…

Why would it be only 0.001% of requests? You can fill your actual pages with links to pages disallowed in robots.txt which are hidden from a human user but visible to a bot scraping the site. Adversarial bots ignoring robots.txt would be following those links everywhere. It could just as easily be 50% of requests and each time it happens, they lose that IP address.
Post reply on HN