←back to thread

Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules

(www.nytimes.com)
863 points IdealeZahlen | 5 comments | 17 Apr 25 14:47 UTC | HN request time: 0.21s | source
Show context
charcircuit ◴[17 Apr 25 15:38 UTC] No.43718438[source]▶
The market is being unfairly defined based on how things worked decades ago instead of looking at the modern landscape. Tech evolved rapidly and the way things worked decades ago may not be optimal for the end user as things change.
replies(2): >>43718461 #>>43718596 #
seydor ◴[17 Apr 25 15:40 UTC] No.43718461[source]▶
> how things worked decades ago

you mean, before monopolies?

replies(1): >>43718531 #
1. charcircuit ◴[17 Apr 25 15:45 UTC] No.43718531[source]▶
Everything is a monopoly if you limit the market enough.
replies(1): >>43718613 #
2. bdcravens ◴[17 Apr 25 15:50 UTC] No.43718613[source]▶
Monopolies in and of themselves aren't a problem, and aren't illegal. Unfair leverage to prevent competition is.
replies(2): >>43719314 #>>43719735 #
3. charcircuit ◴[17 Apr 25 16:45 UTC] No.43719314[source]▶
The existence of competition doesn't always make things better. For example forcing middlemen to exist so that there is competition can lead to a worse situation than without middlemen. Direct to consumer is unfair leverage to middlemen, but it can be better for consumers.
replies(1): >>43727074 #
4. CPLX ◴[17 Apr 25 17:18 UTC] No.43719735[source]▶
This is not correct and a common misconception, on both sides of the argument.

Both monopolies and monopolistic actions are illegal, each alone is enough to be in violation of the law.

5. BlueTemplar ◴[18 Apr 25 11:34 UTC] No.43727074{3}[source]▶
That's a really weird way to define "competition" ?