←back to thread

Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules

(www.nytimes.com)
863 points IdealeZahlen | 3 comments | 17 Apr 25 14:47 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
Frieren ◴[17 Apr 25 18:43 UTC] No.43720645[source]▶
This is necessary now, but it should have been done years back.

Nowadays, many companies backed up by investors with very deep pockets are doing this in all markets: start to buy middle-man companies in a space, it does not matter which one, dominate the market thanks to monopolistic power. Screw the clients making them pay too much, screw the providers paying them too little. Go for the next market.

Google does this for ads. But, with Apple, does the same for app vendors. Amazon does it for all kinds of brands with physical products. Uber does it for taxi drivers and their clients. All of them take a big chunk of the profit while making things more expensive, but they are the only real option to reach clients as they have used tactics to monopolize entire markets.

This should be impossible, because there are laws against it. If it is allowed the future of the economy is one big corporation with all workers working for it, and everybody buying from it. It looks like a scifi dystopia.

replies(4): >>43720826 #>>43721652 #>>43724611 #>>43728179 #
foobarian ◴[17 Apr 25 19:01 UTC] No.43720826[source]▶
If only Marx et al. knew that the end game of capitalism is communism! Would have probably slept much better at night.
replies(4): >>43721433 #>>43722682 #>>43723829 #>>43724211 #
tdb7893 ◴[18 Apr 25 00:50 UTC] No.43723829[source]▶
Not to be overly pedantic but what he described isn't communism, monopolistic private corporation is pretty much the exact opposite of communism.
replies(1): >>43724853 #
fsckboy ◴[18 Apr 25 03:55 UTC] No.43724853{3}[source]▶
price discovery through invisible hand, competitive markets are the the opposite of communism. crony capitalist monopolies are more like fascism vs communism
replies(1): >>43724862 #
dragonwriter ◴[18 Apr 25 03:58 UTC] No.43724862{4}[source]▶
“Crony capitalist monopolies” are a prominent feature of the real world system for which socialist critics coined the name “capitalism”.

They do have a lot to do with “Communism” if by that you mean Leninism and its derivatives, all of which are state-capitalist systems in practice (in theory as a transitional developmental phase to socialism, but few ever transitioned out except a few like China that transitioned to something like the fascist form of corporatism, which is in many ways, as an economic system divorced from the rest of fascism, a midway point between private capitalism and state capitalism.)

replies(1): >>43725788 #
1. fsckboy ◴[18 Apr 25 07:17 UTC] No.43725788{5}[source]▶
the real world critics of crony capitalism also coined the term socialism and then set about forming sociopathic totalitarian states and started slaughtering, torturing and starving people. what's your point?

and by socialism i mean the 4th international, the 3rd international, et al, whence were spawned many socialist parties that called themselves socialists, but which are in full agreement with what casual observers would call communism and or marxism. it's all distinction without difference.

source: i used to be an active communist

replies(1): >>43725886 #
2. dragonwriter ◴[18 Apr 25 07:35 UTC] No.43725886[source]▶
> the real world critics of crony capitalism also coined the term socialism and then set about forming sociopathic totalitarian stat

No, they didn't; the people who did the latter were different people, decades later than the former, who, despite claiming ideological continuity, departed radically from the theory of the former. The original critics saw capitalism as (like socialism, but prior to it) an imperfect but necessary developmental stage on the road to the end-stage of communism, while the people who built the totalitarian dystopias saw it as a thing to be avoided entirely, adapted Marxist theory to bypass it, etc.

> and by socialism i mean the 4th international, the 3rd international, etc.,

Obviously, the 3rd and 4th international were not the people who wrote the original critiques in which capitalism was named

> but which are in full agreement with what casual observers would call communism and or marxism

“Casual observers” are called that for a reason.

> source: i used to be an active communist

Not at all surprised; you seem to still deeply hold to the propaganda of one of the Leninist-derived branches, even having abandoned it as an ideology/identity.

replies(1): >>43731029 #
3. fsckboy ◴[18 Apr 25 19:10 UTC] No.43731029[source]▶
no Leninist would every acknowledge the 4th international.

i won't argue the rest of the flaws in your response because you are clearly a bitter-ender