Happy to see this and hopefully there are some changes. Right now I'm dealing with a crazy Adsense issue and there is no recourse, no customer support and no alternative.
replies(3):
How you can argue such things are democratic are beyond me. There is nothing democratic about trillion dollar corporations that can ruin your business for refusing to play their game.
Is a farmer "a failure who shouldn't have a business" if some asshole buys up every single railroad, port, and truck in the country he lives in?
I'm sure you also believe that she was asking for it because she was wearing a short skirt and your dad was right to hit you because you wouldn't shut up.
It's completely reasonable to use adsense to generate revenue and then be upset when they inevitably fuck you (and they will). It's not a chance to make a (completely uninformed) "ah, that's your own fault" comment, deflecting from scumbag practices google engages in.
If Google blocks my access to the only viable ad network do you really think it's reasonable to say I need to set up my own ad exchange?
This is insane. In no free society would this be just.
They need to rightfully be broken up to ensure a free society for everyone, not just the cohort of people that own alphabet stocks.
Hackers call every big business they do not like a "monopoly". What's next, Burger King is a monopoly? I dislike Google more than most and would never buy nor sell ads with them, but they have no monopoly on advertising.
If your business model is to make yourself completely dependent on a single third party, then you shouldn't have a business.
> What’s next, Burger King is a monopoly?
I think this just illustrates that you’re not grasping the concept. Of course Burger King isn’t a monopoly. With my car when looking for a drive through dining experience I can go to McDonalds. Or Wendy’s. Or whatever. When operating a small to medium size web site that depends on advertising for revenue the viable alternatives to Google essentially don’t exist.
Situation 2: You want to let others advertise their products or service in your space. There is an endless amount of companies which you can contact to make advertising deals. If you are too lazy to do that and want a third party to take care of it, then you can use Google as a middle man. But they are not obliged to do business with you.
If the justice wants to go after Google, then they could (and should) prosecute Google (and Meta, and Twitter) for all the scam and malware ads they permit through their platform. That is billions of dollars of money laundering, and the CEOs should be imprisoned for this. For life.
You’re commenting on an article with the title “Google is illegally monopolizing” which is reporting on the official verdict of a federal trial where Google was well represented and lost.
Just like there is a difference between theft, burglary and robbery.
You might even argue that there’s no other definition less abitrary than this one, and it’s your understanding of what the word means that needs revision.
An appeal to authority is an excellent way to argue when the authority in question has the ability to determine and define the answer in question.
Calling a company an illegal monopoly at the ci conclusion of a trial is analogous to calling a person a convicted murderer because a court says they are.
Do you have your own definition of a kilometer too?
You and me however, are not involved in any way, and do not have to respect anything this ignorant judge says or decides.
It's also not one party, it's successive Democratic and Republican administrations that prosecuted the cases.
It's also not just Federal, the most recent victory was also prosecuted by the Attorneys General of 17 separate states, also from a mix of political parties.
Google is a monopoly engaged in anti-competitive actions that have severely harmed the markets it participates in. That's a demonstrated fact at this point.
You're welcome to advocate for a redefinition of the words we're using here, or just to legalize monopoly power, which presumably is a political goal you have and would have the effect of causing judges to reach different outcomes based on this new law, but there's no value in arguing with reality.