[HN Gopher] Behind a Secret Deal Between Google and Facebook
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Behind a Secret Deal Between Google and Facebook
        
       Author : ta1234567890
       Score  : 48 points
       Date   : 2021-01-17 15:47 UTC (7 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
        
       | tedjdziuba wrote:
       | "They are private companies, they can do what they want!"
        
       | LatteLazy wrote:
       | The article is long on feelings and seems very short on actual
       | law breaking. I hope the lawsuit(s) cover more than this or
       | they'll likely collapse.
       | 
       | The accusations seem to come down to: Google sell ads (legal);
       | Google is building a new system for the market to do that in
       | (legal); Google wanted to get Facebook to join (legal); Google
       | offered them preferential treatment to get them (legal); Facebook
       | accepted (legal).
       | 
       | Plenty of this might seem unfair. Or underhand. But those aren't
       | just legal, they're totally standard in all company to company
       | market places. When Dell buy components, they get a better price
       | from Intel than your local shop. They even get first dibs on new
       | components, even if they're paying less for them.
       | 
       | There is only really one claim in here that might rise to the
       | level of illegal, but Google actively denied it was true:
       | 
       | >Perhaps the most serious claim in the draft complaint was that
       | the two companies had predetermined that Facebook would win a
       | fixed percentage of auctions that it bid on.
       | 
       | >"Unbeknown to other market participants, no matter how high
       | others might bid, the parties have agreed that the gavel will
       | come down in Facebook's favor a set number of times," the draft
       | complaint said. A Google spokeswoman said Facebook must make the
       | highest bid to win an auction, just like its other exchange and
       | ad network partners.
       | 
       | I'm concerned that we have problems with Big Tech. But people
       | keep grabbing the first idea that comes along: antitrust. Only
       | antitrust won't do what they think it does. I'm not even sure
       | people know what they want at this point...
        
         | treis wrote:
         | It's not legal when those companies are a duopoly and the
         | agreement is (at least partially) about dropping competing
         | products.
        
           | LatteLazy wrote:
           | Its not illegal to have or consolidate market power AFAIK. It
           | only becomes illegal if you can prove that that hurt
           | consumers.
           | 
           | I'm not clear what part of this causes that. The whole point
           | of this change is to up the price paid to publishers got AND
           | offer more options to ad buyers. That seems like an
           | improvement for everyone.
           | 
           | Google, Facebook, eBay and other big tech companies are very
           | good at walking this line: we control the market but we don't
           | abuse that control.
           | 
           | So either someone has to show abuse or we need to change the
           | law...
        
       | ahuxley2013 wrote:
       | Pretty obvious all of the tech oligarchies are colluding. They
       | should be broken up, Apple, Google, Facebook, Oracle, Etc. All
       | the major companies in all the major sectors of the economy
       | collude with one another. I remember when the secret
       | Apple/Google/Oracle collusion came out. On Hacker News people
       | from the fast food industry stated that they engaged in the same
       | practices between McDonalds/Burger King/Wendy's etc. So even the
       | lowest rung of labor in the U.S. has the same collusion and
       | illegal practices.
        
         | LatteLazy wrote:
         | What we all think is happening and what you can prove in court
         | are often two different things. That's where the real skill
         | comes from legislators: writing laws that can effectively be
         | enforced.
        
       | jiveturkey wrote:
       | duopolies are the new monopolies. we've known this for some time
       | now.
        
         | rurban wrote:
         | Nope, cartels will always exist, unless you are willing to
         | break them up. The number of members in the club (ie trade
         | association) which does the fixing is irrelevant and varies
         | wildly. Most of the time more than two
        
         | pacamara619 wrote:
         | 2+ competitors colluding are called a cartel and the reason we
         | have anti-trust laws.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-01-17 23:01 UTC)