[HN Gopher] The antitrust case against Google
___________________________________________________________________
The antitrust case against Google
Author : lawrenceyan
Score : 101 points
Date : 2020-06-11 18:50 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (insights.som.yale.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (insights.som.yale.edu)
| nojito wrote:
| After Google got caught compensating scholars for friendly
| content, people should be extremely skeptical of anything read
| until the case the formally revealed. Regardless of how critical
| or supportive it is of Google.
| tantalor wrote:
| Link?
| nojito wrote:
| https://www.wsj.com/articles/paying-professors-inside-
| google...
| ariwilson wrote:
| Remember the owner of WSJ, Rupert Murdoch, is vehemently anti-
| Google:
|
| https://www.google.com/search?q=rupert+murdoch+google&rlz=1C...
| Avicebron wrote:
| Do antitrust cases normally result in a breakup or sanctions? or
| Both? I was not around for the Microsoft one, did it have any
| real impact?
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| Essentially the big problem is that antitrust has been pretty
| much neutered for the past couple of decades. We haven't _seen_
| properly functional antitrust regulators in a very, very long
| time.
| zonethundery wrote:
| Breakups are very hard. Microsoft was overturned on appeal.
| Avicebron wrote:
| If it can be overturned with an appeal doesn't that only
| reinforce the underlying problem? If just me as a user of the
| platform have been feeling increasingly squeezed by AMP, more
| and more aggressive ads, poorer search results. Large scale
| data collection, the deeply troubling stance on privacy and
| anonymity, shouldn't there be a more collective way to say
| enough?
|
| And to just head this off: "Just switch platforms bro, there
| are tons of other options out there, haven't you heard of
| DDG?" this isn't a valid response and instinctively I know
| you know it to, that's why there is talk of anti-trust.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Wait, why doesn't it work? I have a friend who uses Brave
| and DDG and all that. Brave will block the trackers but you
| could just as well install Chrom(e|ium) with uBlock Origin
| (and uMatrix if you're so inclined) and also get one of
| those Amp-bypass plugins.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| The issue is that unless a large enough percentage of
| users do so, Google still controls the market, and runs
| the table on the other side. Google is an intermediary in
| the chain between other businesses which run ads and seek
| search placement, and consumers which see ads and look at
| searches.
|
| As long as Google holds 90% of the market, businesses
| have to advertise with Google, and websites have to cater
| to Google's search ranking demands.
|
| And users choosing to switch never happens in large
| enough quantities to change this: Almost everyone uses
| the default search provider. Which is why Google operates
| Chrome, Android, and pays for Firefox and Safari search
| placement. And even if half those platforms weren't first
| party (and monopolies in their own right), they can't get
| outbid easily on the other ones because, due to the
| existing monopoly, they have more money to bid than
| everyone else.
|
| Fundamentally, I think the bare minimum to handle Google
| is breaking Android and Chrome away from Google and
| prohibiting the company from operating their own browsers
| and operating systems. (It might also be prudent to set
| limits on their ability to bid for default search
| placement, as a way to encourage browsers to shift to a
| browser choice model, which would be hard to compel
| Firefox and Safari, in particular, to do within the
| confines of a suit against Google.)
| renewiltord wrote:
| I think that is a non-sequitur in this discussion which
| is about a user
|
| > _If just me as a user of the platform have been feeling
| increasingly squeezed by AMP, more and more aggressive
| ads, poorer search results. Large scale data collection,
| the deeply troubling stance on privacy and anonymity,
| shouldn 't there be a more collective way to say enough?_
| Avicebron wrote:
| How is this a non-sequitur? There is a clear issue that
| led to a question about said issue? Issues with google,
| why is there not a way to solve this? Straightforward.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| We as users are not really Google's customers. What I'm
| not hearing much/any of is companies reducing their
| adword spend or use of Google apps based on Google's
| business practices.
| renewiltord wrote:
| > _If just me as a user of the platform have been feeling
| increasingly squeezed by AMP, more and more aggressive
| ads, poorer search results. Large scale data collection,
| the deeply troubling stance on privacy and anonymity,
| shouldn 't there be a more collective way to say enough?_
|
| Well, in that sense you don't have to be their customers.
| If you're subject to this then you don't have to be.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Yes and no. The judgment against them, requiring breakup, was
| overturned on appeal. But Microsoft was pretty sure that they
| were going to suffer a lesser penalty, so they settled the
| case by accepting some restrictions on their behavior, and
| some monitoring.
| noir_lord wrote:
| In the EU we got a pop-up letting us choose a different
| browser.
|
| Beyond that it didn't have much effect directly but it also
| stopped Microsoft been so hilariously agressive in other ways
| (though that's a harder effect to pin down, 2000-era Microsoft
| was a shark with bloodlust).
| judge2020 wrote:
| > In the EU we got a pop-up letting us choose a different
| browser
|
| Wonder what it'll take for this to come to all of the other
| OSes with default browsers
| wmf wrote:
| Those OSes would have to have monopoly market share.
| megamix wrote:
| Google is just that big bullying gang on the school yard. We all
| know what we need to do
| remarkEon wrote:
| Get straight As, go to a better school, and eventually become
| its boss?
| Avicebron wrote:
| The bully can shut down your better school and hide you're
| report card. Doesn't track.
| andromeduck wrote:
| What's even the point of adding a bunch of rules to break up a
| player with less than a third of the market and already in
| decline? It seems pretty clear that competitors have stepped it
| up. Meanwhile in Mobile ma bell has reassembled itself and in
| cable we're stuck with regional monopolies; in healthcare we're
| happy with the same or greater dominance by total monopolies like
| for insulin or glasses amongst other goods; likewise in payments
| with Visa and Mastercard.
|
| Smells like political rent seeking to me.
| [deleted]
| yingw787 wrote:
| "Why cut my fingernails? They'll grow back."
|
| - Ephraim, "Munich" (2005)
| akersten wrote:
| I'm confused about what the remedy is supposed to be, or what
| outcome the AGs are seeking. Actually, it sounds like they
| haven't made up their mind yet either:
|
| > And then the states are going to presumably file a complaint
| also at some juncture, probably after that. So then we will see
| what those complaints say, what kind of conduct they allege as
| being anti-competitive.
|
| Is it normal for suits like this to be touted out in public for
| so long ahead of an actual complaint being filed? Seems like
| intimidation to me.
| ponker wrote:
| Telling someone that they are breaking the law and giving them
| a chance to stop before they are punished is not
| "intimidation."
| RockIslandLine wrote:
| Yes, it's not at all clear what remedy would be effective.
|
| Some limit on total percentage of searches, similar to the
| limit in the 1996 Telecommunications Act that no company can
| own stations reaching more than 35% of the national audience?
|
| That would seem to break google into roughly a triumvirate, but
| does that actually solve any of the problems in any useful way?
| robbrown451 wrote:
| "Intimidation" is a pejorative, of course, but I don't see
| anything wrong with alerting Google that they are risking an
| antitrust lawsuit if they keep doing things the way they are
| doing things.
|
| I'm not sure I see the need to be so worried about a nearly
| trillion-dollar company being intimidated.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| s/intimidation/politics/.
|
| The AGs are trying to look good in the press, so they look good
| to the voters. As far as actual lawsuits go... there may be
| one, someday, maybe.
| fanatic2pope wrote:
| I look forward to Microsoft passionately coming to Google's
| defense in order to protect the "freedom to innovate".
|
| https://news.microsoft.com/1998/04/09/microsoft-advertisemen...
| netcan wrote:
| This is very well written.
|
| If antitrust laws do not define google as a monopoly, it's
| obviously the antitrust laws that are wrong. Google is obviously
| a monopoly.
|
| The 2018 case against Google in the EU (EUR1.5bn fine) made very
| similar points and won.
|
| The real problem is what comes next. If recent history is a
| guide, it will be a cost-of-doing-business fine. This does
| nothing. At best, they'll adapt practices slightly. Maybe they've
| adapted enough post 2018 to make this case difficult.
|
| We need a new approach. There is no way antitrust courts can act
| as regulators effectively. They find that a monopoly exists,
| but... the goal is not regulated monopolies.
|
| The whole premise of antitrust is that monopolies are harmful in
| lots of _systemic_ ways. We must assume that most are unknown. A
| prosecutor & court can't track down every monopolistic mechanism
| or dynamic and fine google for it. We need to avoid and void
| monopolies. This is why there are mechanisms to void mergers.
|
| Adwords could IPO independently. They'd be a great, profitable
| company. So would Google search, youtube, android... All these
| could be financially viable companies independently.
|
| Total share price would be lower. This reflects the fact that
| monopolies are more profitable. OTOH, the Google monopoly is an
| easy one to solve. It's so profitable that financial viability is
| easily achieved.
| jldugger wrote:
| > Google is obviously a monopoly.
|
| Of which market though? Search: maybe. Ads: no.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-06-11 23:00 UTC)