Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    European Commission fines Google €2.95B over abusive ad tech practices

    (ec.europa.eu)
    398 points ChrisArchitect | 13 comments | 05 Sep 25 16:52 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
    Show context
    amelius ◴[05 Sep 25 17:36 UTC] No.45141247[source]▶
    Ok, now can we also have a three-strikes policy please, with prison sentences. Otherwise this is just the cost of doing business.
    replies(5): >>45141426 #>>45141481 #>>45141490 #>>45142049 #>>45143060 #
    1. reorder9695 ◴[05 Sep 25 17:49 UTC] No.45141426[source]▶
    Almost 3bn euros is one hell of a cost of business though, that's approximately a euro for every 2.5 people on the planet
    replies(6): >>45141451 #>>45141517 #>>45141572 #>>45141822 #>>45141897 #>>45142165 #
    2. isodev ◴[05 Sep 25 17:51 UTC] No.45141451[source]▶
    Google has been serving a lot of ads over the years.
    3. thinkingtoilet ◴[05 Sep 25 17:57 UTC] No.45141517[source]▶
    Until the rich people who green light things like this go to jail it will literally never stop. Someone, somewhere needs to be responsible for policies that break the law and they need to go to jail.
    replies(1): >>45143860 #
    4. djtango ◴[05 Sep 25 18:20 UTC] No.45141822[source]▶
    Huh? Google generated 350B in revenues in 2024...

    3B is pocket change to them

    5. jjani ◴[05 Sep 25 18:26 UTC] No.45141897[source]▶
    It's 15% of their yearly net profit in the region. Not even revenue.

    3bn sounds like a lot because we haven't gotten used to the absurd profit levels that these monstrosities have reached.

    replies(1): >>45142426 #
    6. Anonyneko ◴[05 Sep 25 18:47 UTC] No.45142165[source]▶
    For Google that's a slap on the wrist.
    replies(1): >>45142433 #
    7. reorder9695 ◴[05 Sep 25 19:11 UTC] No.45142426[source]▶
    I actually do think that's significant, if someone took 15% of your yearly earnings this year that would definitely be noticed. I'm not saying it's the right amount, I'm saying that is enough to be felt and therefore isn't the tiny fines you often tend to see
    replies(2): >>45146696 #>>45166685 #
    8. generic92034 ◴[05 Sep 25 19:11 UTC] No.45142433[source]▶
    But a slap which can easily be repeated (even with more force), if Google does not comply.
    9. lucketone ◴[05 Sep 25 21:31 UTC] No.45143860[source]▶
    My company has a committee that votes on these kinds of things.

    You as a prosecutor, who will you take to jail? whole committee? Those who voted in-favour? Somebody who brought the proposal? Only CEO?

    Each of these decisions if done consistently over time, would invoke changes in companies, to get some fall-guys in right places.

    replies(2): >>45144048 #>>45149075 #
    10. alkonaut ◴[05 Sep 25 21:49 UTC] No.45144048{3}[source]▶
    For usual corporate crimes: Usually CEO and/or a few senior individuals who you could prove was part of a conspiracy and aware it was a crime, through emails, chat logs etc.
    11. jjani ◴[06 Sep 25 04:45 UTC] No.45146696{3}[source]▶
    My yearly earnings are revenue, not profit.
    12. thinkingtoilet ◴[06 Sep 25 13:24 UTC] No.45149075{3}[source]▶
    The very easy and obvious answer is the people who are responsible. If there is a committee then the obvious answer is the people who voted for it. It's not hard. It's like saying what if I break the law but I do it with three other people, who goes to jail? The obvious answer is everyone who broke the law goes to jail. If a fifth person did not participate and said you should not break the law, the very obvious answer is the person who did not participate and who did not break the law does not go to jail. It's not complicated at all.
    13. account42 ◴[08 Sep 25 10:40 UTC] No.45166685{3}[source]▶
    Would you not take a 30% pay increase just because it came with a risk to be fined 15% of your earnings once after profiting for many years though?