←back to thread

Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules

(www.nytimes.com)
863 points IdealeZahlen | 2 comments | 17 Apr 25 14:47 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
lupka ◴[17 Apr 25 15:18 UTC] No.43718153[source]▶
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): >>43718586 #>>43718619 #>>43718696 #
whoknowsidont ◴[17 Apr 25 15:48 UTC] No.43718586[source]▶
There is no shortage of other ad platforms. Breaking up Google isn't going to solve your specific issue lol
replies(4): >>43718857 #>>43719143 #>>43719228 #>>43719239 #
azemetre ◴[17 Apr 25 16:10 UTC] No.43718857[source]▶
No but it would stop a single company from accumulating so much power.

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.

replies(2): >>43719156 #>>43720880 #
whoknowsidont ◴[17 Apr 25 16:32 UTC] No.43719156[source]▶
How can Google ruin your business?
replies(2): >>43719208 #>>43719224 #
afavour ◴[17 Apr 25 16:38 UTC] No.43719224[source]▶
I've seen countless examples, e.g. a business that depends on online advertising gets its account suspended for incorrect reasons and there is literally no-one to reach at Google to get unsuspended.
replies(2): >>43719304 #>>43719544 #
carlosjobim ◴[17 Apr 25 17:03 UTC] No.43719544[source]▶
If you made your business become completely dependent on a third party, you were already a failure and shouldn't have a business. Being a successful businessman is not a right. It's competition.
replies(4): >>43719619 #>>43719632 #>>43719728 #>>43720439 #
CPLX ◴[17 Apr 25 17:09 UTC] No.43719619{5}[source]▶
The reason monopolies are illegal is precisely because they force people to be completely dependent on a third party.

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?

replies(1): >>43721625 #
1. carlosjobim ◴[17 Apr 25 20:08 UTC] No.43721625{6}[source]▶
No, but if he makes himself for example completely dependent on Monsanto, he shouldn't have a business, because he's in practice an employee with all the financial responsibilities of a business and none of the benefits of having a business. And none of the benefits of being an employee either.

If your business model is to make yourself completely dependent on a single third party, then you shouldn't have a business.

replies(1): >>43724921 #
2. CPLX ◴[18 Apr 25 04:08 UTC] No.43724921[source]▶
The only way it would be possible for him to become completely dependent on Monsanto is if that company is allowed to monopolize the product categories it sells.