(www.nytimes.com)

863 points IdealeZahlen | 1 comments | 17 Apr 25 14:47 UTC | HN request time: 0.37s | source

Show context

megaman821 ◴[17 Apr 25 15:50 UTC] No.43718617[source]▶

I don't think this article explains it well. Google sells ad space on behalf of the publishers and also sells the ads on behalf of the advertisers. It also runs the auction that places the ads into the ad space. See this graphic https://images.app.goo.gl/ADx5xrAnWNicgoFu7. Parts of this can definately be broken up without destroying Google.

replies(19): >>43718672 #>>43718693 #>>43718751 #>>43718794 #>>43718938 #>>43719033 #>>43719196 #>>43719219 #>>43719246 #>>43719395 #>>43719429 #>>43719463 #>>43720402 #>>43720461 #>>43720510 #>>43721628 #>>43722559 #>>43723479 #>>43724604 #

1. pydry ◴[17 Apr 25 16:36 UTC] No.43719196[source]▶

>>43718617 #

The question is more "would you expect google to reoffend given the chance again?"

Not "is it strictly necessary for them to be broken up to prevent them from reoffending"?

100% I would expect them to reoffend. No question whatsoever.

↑

Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules