[HN Gopher] Google: The harmful consequences of Congress's anti-...
___________________________________________________________________
Google: The harmful consequences of Congress's anti-tech bills
Author : KoftaBob
Score : 44 points
Date : 2022-01-18 20:55 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.google)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.google)
| lallysingh wrote:
| After their anti-union campaign, is there much remaining
| reputation behind their voice?
| umeshunni wrote:
| Mizza wrote:
| "I don't anyone with half a brain supports unions in the US."
|
| The ironing is delisauce.
| gremlinsinc wrote:
| That's correct anyone with half a brain does not support
| unions. Those who do not support unions are generally
| uneducated so I guess you could say have 'half a brain'.
|
| Anyone with a full brain can see through the corporate
| propaganda anti-union videos they get lambasted with during
| on-boarding and see that unions are why workers have any
| pleasant living conditions at all.
| fluidcruft wrote:
| I started reading that and... it really doesn't say anything.
| Even after introducing "Some specifics:" it's just generic FUD
| hemming and hawing. Basically it says Google doesn't like some
| legislation (without getting into any details about why) and I
| guess we should be concerned because Google says they will have
| to take their balls home.
|
| The big problem here is Google has a long history of handing out
| balls to the public and taking them away whenever Google got
| tired of those balls. So what if Google gets rid of Gmail or Maps
| or Search or whatever. Shouldn't everyone expect Google to get
| rid of any of their free services at any time anyway?
|
| I'm really very curious what exactly this legislation is
| proposing that makes Google so hysterical? Maybe that they must
| provide support and appeals processes when their machines grind
| up users?
| judge2020 wrote:
| For 'hurt small businesses', two links deep is this article[0],
| and the only accusations it actually makes are:
|
| > Like the House's bill, the Senate's bill would force
| companies like Amazon to separate their marketplace from their
| own retail offerings. This sounds "good" in theory, but the end
| of hybrid services would inevitably mean the decline of the
| SMBs who use and succeed on these platforms.
|
| and
|
| > The Senate's legislation would also make it impossible for
| Amazon to offer its Prime free shipping service on millions of
| products, many of which are from small and medium-sized
| businesses. Consumers will likely turn to big retailers, none
| of whom are targeted by the bill and most do not provide the
| same seamless and robust access to massive consumer markets or
| promote small businesses nearly as well.
|
| Despite these, I can't find the bill text in these articles.
|
| (also, I hope the marketplace breakup would also affect
| walmart.com - they made a 3p seller marketplace that has caused
| confusion in customers who now think Walmart is selling GPUs at
| scalper prices[1] when they're actually just taking a % of
| those scalpers' revenue)
|
| 0: https://www.ocregister.com/2021/10/26/small-businesses-
| would...
|
| 1: https://www.walmart.com/ip/MSI-NVIDIA-GeForce-RTX-3080-Ti-
| Gr...
| jeffbee wrote:
| It seems pretty specific to me. If Congress writes a law that
| says Google can't integrate hours of operation into Google
| Maps, they have to defer to Yelp, that harms consumers and only
| helps Yelp. Viewed through that lens, you can and should think
| of these bills as Yelp welfare.
|
| If you are a big fan of Yelp I guess that's OK for you, but
| most of us can see that it's a scam.
| coliveira wrote:
| But yelp is not the only company that can compile hours of
| operation. However, if Google is able to integrate all that
| into the same product, there will be no yelp or yelp
| competitor to talk about.
| avirut wrote:
| But as a consumer it's very nice to have hours of
| operation, directions, phone numbers, and reviews all in
| one place that's linked to my search engine.
|
| I can see how, if Google's top priority is turning a
| profit, Google having a product so data-rich and unified
| that it leaves no room for competitors is bad for consumers
| in the long term. On the other hand, the most desirable
| option would be a reliably "benevolent" mega-corp that
| could be trusted to prioritize the user experience while
| also horizontally integrating across product segments to
| create a unified service.
| echelon wrote:
| And what happens when Google becomes the operating system for
| the world and you have to do everything through Google?
|
| Competition is incredibly important.
|
| Imagine if Microsoft hadn't been anti-trusted and didn't have
| to unbundle the web, pay Apple for their malfeasance, etc. We
| wouldn't have iPhone / Android.
| bennysomething wrote:
| You think the reason for Android and iPhone is Microsoft
| anti trust? Why? The final settlement didn't amount to much
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_
| C....
|
| If anything it proves that we didn't need anti trust
| action, the market took care of itself. Microsoft
| stagnated, Steve Jobs returned to Apple and innovated,
| Google had a great search algorithm and piggy backed their
| infrastructure on free software (Linux) and then ripped off
| apples design for phone software.
| betwixthewires wrote:
| But it isn't true, I can see an equally likely scenario where
| Google has to offer its POI maps data to other search
| engines, making the overall search experience better, to stay
| competitive.
| endisneigh wrote:
| That doesn't make any sense. What precedent is there for
| this sort of action? Do we really want the government to be
| micro managing the features of online services?
| betwixthewires wrote:
| Precedent? What about Microsoft being forced not to
| cripple browsers other than IE in windows? That's the
| most prominent recent example.
|
| Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it
| makes no sense at all.
| endisneigh wrote:
| That's not the same as what the parent said at all. When
| has the government ever forced one company to offer data
| to another one?
| ancientsofmumu wrote:
| The Telecommunications Act of 1996 did just that, forcing
| data interoperability between the carriers.
|
| _Thus, another key provision of the 1996 Act sets
| obligations for incumbent carriers and new entrants to
| interconnect their networks with one another, imposing
| additional requirements on the incumbents because they
| might desire to restrict competitive entry by denying
| such interconnection or by setting terms, conditions, and
| rates that could undermine the ability of the new
| entrants to compete._
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1
| 996
| frabcus wrote:
| Only if they don't innovate.
|
| They could create a search marketplace for providing high
| quality hours of operation services, and let multiple
| providers compete for it.
| jsnell wrote:
| Ok. So in your new framework, who would be choosing which
| provider is used, how are the prices set, and who would be
| compensating the provider? No end user will agree to pay
| for this data. But you can't have the payer be different
| from the decision maker.
| KoftaBob wrote:
| > If Congress writes a law that says Google can't integrate
| hours of operation into Google Maps
|
| I don't get where Google is even getting that scenario from.
| Where in the antitrust laws does it specify rules that would
| result in that?
| csdvrx wrote:
| > I guess we should be concerned because Google says they will
| have to take their balls home
|
| As they haven't do that in the EU and Australia, everyone knows
| they're bluffing.
| bryan_w wrote:
| I'm sure I agree with most of this post, but it would really help
| if they gave an overview of the laws being proposed or at least a
| link to the drafts
| m1117 wrote:
| Lol what is it about? So vague.
| mandeepj wrote:
| Well, the actual sentiment here at HN about Google is -
|
| "HN: The harmful consequences of Google's anti-user approach"
| the_doctah wrote:
| We should be focused on anti-censorship laws.
| Animats wrote:
| The ad-supported part of the economy has become far too big. It
| used to be just a few ad agencies on Madison Avenue in New York
| and TV stations that were purely ad-supported. Now it's a sizable
| fraction of the economy. Maybe it's time to stop allowing
| advertising as a tax-deductible business expense. Encourage
| companies to focus on doing the thing, instead of hyping the
| thing.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| > These bills may compel us to share the sensitive data you store
| with us with unknown companies in ways that could compromise your
| privacy.
|
| Is that really any worse than sharing the sensitive data we store
| with them with known companies in ways that definitely compromise
| our privacy though?
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| This comment is carefully worded. It does not use the word
| "sell" or "transfer", it uses the word "share". Nor does it
| imply one's "identity", e.g., PII, is revealed throught such
| sharing. It only suggests privacy may be compromised. That is
| accurate. For example, a person's privacy could be compromised
| via an embarassing ad appearing on their screen, which is a
| direct result of Google's collection of sensitive data about a
| person. Google provides access to the target. We could argue
| about whether Google has actually shared any sensitive data but
| is that truly the central issue. Google shared with the
| advertiser its knowledge of the existence of the target,
| derived from sensitive data it collected, and may have even
| assisted with delivering the ad to the target.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| Google sells advertising. They don't sell your private data to
| 3rd parties. Same with Facebook. It's not in the interests of
| these companies to sell their proprietary user targeting data
| to other companies. They need to keep it closely guarded if
| they want to retain any edge in the marketplace.
|
| Two very different things, but they've been (intentionally)
| conflated in a lot of the public debates to make it sound more
| evil.
| tchalla wrote:
| And, why does Google and Facebook not sell data? It's not out
| some altruistic concern. They want to play kingmaker.
| Tomorrow, if there's an option to sell data versus stay in
| business let's see what they'd do.
| judge2020 wrote:
| We're not saying they wouldn't sell data if it meant 10x
| revenue, but it'd have to be 10x revenue sustained for
| eternity.
|
| As of now, all of that data staying safe in their solos
| means
|
| (A) they don't lose customers who are fine with advertising
| but not that data going to some DB that anyone could then
| inspect (since you know some company would buy it then
| charge others $x thousands of dollars to dig into users'
| lives), and
|
| (B) they're the only ones with that data, and thus their
| advertising business can use it to possibly show more
| relevant ads. If the competing ad company can just buy
| Google's user data, they could sell just as well-targeted
| ads as Google but undercut them by x% margin, thus always
| winning the ad space on a website.
| newfonewhodis wrote:
| > The idea that Google or Facebook "sell your data" is a
| myth.
|
| Do you have hard evidence for this claim?
| jonathankoren wrote:
| Do you have any evidence that they're selling PII?
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| It doesn't even make logical sense. Why would the company
| give up their edge in the market?
|
| Where does one go to buy this Facebook or Google data?
| Who's buying it? Surely these things would have come up in
| all of the Congressional hearings, right?
| newfonewhodis wrote:
| Data flows from and in and out of data warehouses is very
| commonly known now [1]. It would be very surprising to me
| that FB, Google and Amazon aren't participating in that
| marketplace.
|
| [0] https://themarkup.org/privacy/2021/12/06/the-popular-
| family-...,
| https://themarkup.org/privacy/2021/09/30/theres-a-
| multibilli...,
| https://themarkup.org/privacy/2021/03/25/i-tried-to-use-
| the-... (more investigations have been done by WIRED as
| well).
| bastardoperator wrote:
| Cambridge Analytica harvested Facebook user data with
| help from Facebook... You go straight to Facebook or
| Google and become a "partner".
| celestialcheese wrote:
| This was a long time ago CA did this with the personality
| quiz apps (2013 IIRC). It's incredibly onerous and in
| some cases impossible to get this data legally from
| Facebook anymore.
| bastardoperator wrote:
| Facebook was fined in 2019 by the FTC for 5 billion
| dollars due to privacy violations. Despite the fact that
| data was trading hands up until 2016, I don't think it
| was that long ago...
| pb7 wrote:
| Exactly, it was a scandal _because_ data left Facebook 's
| silos because in normal operations it does not.
| gremlinsinc wrote:
| So you mean Google won't use cookies to track the things I
| browse then use retargeting which is basically selling my
| data/habits (by proxy) to the advertiser? I totally thought
| they did this...
| mannerheim wrote:
| If I don't want to share my data with Company X, and Google
| doesn't want to share my data with Company X, why should Google
| be compelled to share my data with Company X?
| vorpalhex wrote:
| Well I was on the fence but Google has sold me. I'd love to not
| be forced into their entire ecosystem just by using one of their
| products. Choices? That would excellent.
| more_corn wrote:
| "The government's attempts to rein in our harmful monopoly will
| cause a slight dip in our absurd profits and potentially protect
| citizens and users from some, but certainly not all, of our
| abuses"
| mannerheim wrote:
| Just because the bill is bad for Google doesn't mean users will
| be protected. I, for one, remain confident in the government's
| ability to come up with solutions that will leave everybody
| equally miserable.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| > Every day, millions of Americans use online services like
| Google Search, Maps and Gmail to find new information and get
| things done.
|
| Can we talk about this instead? Whats up with not finding the
| things i search for. Either the internet has stopped having the
| useful info i was seeking or google couldn't find it. It would
| not be a great annoyance if it was easy to switch to bing. Google
| holds all the entry points to the internet for themselves
| pb7 wrote:
| Switching to Bing is a matter of going to bing.com or changing
| the default search engine in your browser, literally the
| easiest thing imaginable.
| dane-pgp wrote:
| > literally the easiest thing imaginable.
|
| Oh, I can imagine something even easier: getting annoyed at
| someone using "literally" that way. In fact it's so easy, it
| happens even if I don't want it to.
| shuntress wrote:
| Self-hosted text-based pages with no SEO make up a
| significantly smaller percentage of the web than they used to.
| emptyparadise wrote:
| At least show us the bill before starting the PR machine.
| syshum wrote:
| This is one of those "torn between 2 evils" situations...
|
| Google == Evil
|
| Government == Evil
|
| there needs to be a 3rd option
| gremlinsinc wrote:
| Create an eco-village (buy land and everyone puts their own
| tiny houses on it), go mostly off-grid, use alternative search
| engines, create mutual aid w/ others to provide healthcare
| costs for the least of the members, and create some recurring
| streams of income -- glamping maybe? or real estate rent
| outside the intentional community...expand this to a worker co-
| op or just something where you have a lot of people who can
| synergistically combine forces and create mutual aid networks,
| alternative to current companies that are themselves worker
| owned and part of the syndicate...etc...
|
| So step 1 would be start a co-op or co-living space. Step 2 -
| join w/ other co-ops/co-living spaces to create a wider
| network. Step 3 - create powerful income producing shared
| resources among the groups. Step 4 - ignore the govt cause they
| now provide less and less benefit and thus have less control on
| your life.
| wstrange wrote:
| Step 5 - the co-op members dont always agree. Create a
| government council and police to settle disputes.
| csdvrx wrote:
| > there needs to be a 3rd option
|
| Public "cancel" movements == Evil
| sremani wrote:
| When the legal guy tries to make the case -- it may be the right
| thing from Companies perspective but to me this a tad bit above
| PR with linguistic gymnastics of Legal.
|
| Not buying it, not going to waste my life reading these vacuous
| hocus pocus arguments.
|
| edit: I want the tech guy or the founder make the case, with
| basic blocking and tackling tactics and strategy bits.
|
| edit2: I read about half the shiz.. it was unbearably vague BS I
| gave up. Google apologists downvoting can go read that garbage.
| betwixthewires wrote:
| Even if Google is being genuine with this article, it's still a
| bad look. They've expended their social capital, they could speak
| pure truth and nobody would believe them. And not for no reason.
| People have good reasons to distrust them.
|
| But having read the article, it references "these bills" without
| a single sentence from any of them. I'm supposed to take your
| word for it that _all_ of "these bills" would harm me? There are
| absolutely no anti trust approaches that wouldn't be harmful to
| _me_?
|
| Sounds like a load of scaremongering, a little "hurt national
| competitiveness and security" language as a thinly veiled message
| to legislators, and grasping at public perception to protect
| their asses.
|
| If you want to convince anyone, quote the lines in the bills and
| lay out how they would affect the public. People see through your
| bullshit and nobody is buying it.
| gremlinsinc wrote:
| Trust and ethics aside, maybe they should worry less about
| controlling everything, and more about the actual quality of
| their products... Currently there's literally no good search
| engines... I've tried em all, and google's results are just
| like slightly better but hardly enough to notice, and the only
| reason I use it is because it sometimes guesses what I want
| from the omnibar better... if I'm revisiting doc sites, etc...
| Hamuko wrote:
| Who's the intended audience for this? Does blog.google actually
| have any kind of a measurable reach?
| [deleted]
| ksec wrote:
| I dont agree with Google or Apple. But I also dont think
| regulation or Anti-Tech bill is the answer.
|
| But both Google and Apple seems to be blindsided as why the world
| have turned against them. Not surprised given how they think of
| themselves as so righteous. Which is also why this piece doesn't
| actually address any of the underlying issue, and instead writing
| what is like propaganda.
|
| May be Self-reflection really is a rare thing.
| sebow wrote:
| Here's food for thought: most of the "regulations" in the tech
| industry have started well past the point of when apple &
| google, facebook have established themselves as the big
| monopolistic players. So while Google complains now about
| regulation, and i'm in the same boat generally speaking: less
| regulation is net positive in the vast majority of cases, it's
| kind of hypocritical from them to say it:these corporations
| have enjoyed 10-15 years or even more of non-regulations
| towards them.And, without sourcing the following statement
| because i don't have the information at hand, in most cases
| Google,Apple & Co. themselves have >lobbied< for legislation,
| regulations, which raise the bar of entry in the market.Again,
| no sources to hold my statement, but i would be surprised if
| anyone is able to dig anything up considering the amount of
| collusion that kept happening for the last 20 years when
| talking about billions->now trillion dollar industry.
| endisneigh wrote:
| It's more or less undeniable that if you cracked down on Google,
| their end users would be negatively affected, yes.
|
| The question is whether or not better companies would be born and
| ultimately provide even greater services to the same set of
| customers.
|
| That - is what is obviously harder to prove.
|
| Personally I think the answer is to simply say that after a
| certain reach per industry a company must provide "access" to
| platforms or pay a percentage of revenue to nurture the smallest
| competitors.
|
| ---
|
| As an aside, I believe the bill in question (https://cdn.vox-
| cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23177323/B...) is dumb.
|
| Basically it bans ads as a model for monetization. Terrible idea
| imho.
| frabcus wrote:
| Not at all - the improved competition would help existing users
| by encouraging innovation and improving search quality.
|
| For example - by offering a way for any provider to embed info
| boxes and search UIs, all competing with each other.
|
| Or by reducing adverts to increase better quality organic
| results (Google can have much less cash and still run fine).
|
| Or by solving all the basic search relevancy flaws discussed on
| Hacker News in recent weeks.
| endisneigh wrote:
| The things you're stating are hardly obvious. In fact
| everything you're saying is already true - providers can
| already compete with Google on search.
|
| It's true that Google can run in less money, but the argument
| can't simply be that. Otherwise you're effectively saying
| companies cannot make as much money as possible in general,
| no?
| frabcus wrote:
| Yes, harmful behaviours by companies have to be regulated.
|
| We don't let chemical waste get poured into rivers.
|
| Likewise, we shouldn't allow harmful behaviour online. We
| have to as a society agree what that means, which is what
| is now finally happening.
|
| Ultimately the businesses will still be viable, just
| different. Most likely more innovative and making better
| products in more competitive environments.
| johnklos wrote:
| Ummm... This is Google propaganda, nothing more. There's no
| actual content that substantiates their claim that Congress will
| hurt people, or to substantiate their bullshit "anti-tech" title.
| tombert wrote:
| Sorry, which anti-tech bills are they referring to?
| fendy3002 wrote:
| Afaik the Antitrust law, from the third paragraph. Not
| American, but why is it suddenly being talked about? Is it
| being discussed for change right now?
| tombert wrote:
| Interesting.
|
| I've railed in the past about how much I hate advertising in
| any form, and the Snowden leaks made me hate the targeted ads
| even more. I'm somewhat of the opinion of "no one is immune
| to propaganda", at least not entirely. Ads serve effectively
| as propaganda for corporations, and sometimes literal
| propaganda towards politics.
|
| If Google cannot make a profit without creating a massive
| surveillance state, then I don't think they should be in
| business.
| judge2020 wrote:
| > If Google cannot make a profit without creating a massive
| surveillance state, then I don't think they should be in
| business.
|
| And yet many people don't want to pay for YT Premium.
| YouTube wouldn't exist if targeted ads didn't exist, and I
| imagine such a predicament isn't what most people envision.
| (and, if Google can't convert all viewers to paying
| customers, I don't see why another subscription-only social
| video platform would work either).
| tombert wrote:
| > And yet many people don't want to pay for YT Premium.
| YouTube wouldn't exist if targeted ads didn't exist.
|
| Is that actually true? Did pre-google YouTube have the
| level of targeted ads that we have right now? I would be
| incredibly surprised if the level of surveillance at that
| time was anywhere near what we have now. Granted, Youtube
| would almost certainly not be as profitable as it is
| right now, but I do think it would be possible.
|
| That said, I don't think you're wrong; things would be
| pretty different, but I also think this might lead to
| more competition in the video sharing space. As it stands
| right now, no one can compete with the market dominance
| of YouTube, particularly because of their insanely good
| recommendation system.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Pre Google YouTube was not a sustainable service nor was
| it nearly as big as it currently is.
|
| There isn't really any way to have a video streaming
| service that mainstream without ads.
| tombert wrote:
| I thought YouTube had ads before Google that just weren't
| hyper-targeted. Could be wrong on that.
|
| Even if I don't like them, I can live with contextual ads
| (e.g. I'm watching a video about video games and I see an
| ad for a Switch).
| judge2020 wrote:
| Google bought it in October 2006 [0] after it had ad
| concepts in August 2006 [1].
|
| 0: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna15196982
|
| 1: https://sites.google.com/a/pressatgoogle.com/youtube5y
| ear/ho...
| frabcus wrote:
| Early on Google adverts were entirely targeted on search
| terms and made tons of money.
|
| It's a myth that targeting users is needed - it makes
| more profit, and creates a moat for the ad market, but
| that's all.
|
| DuckDuckGo shows this is the case.
| throwaway946513 wrote:
| YouTube wholly can exist without targeted ads.
|
| The internet and ads have existed long before YouTube,
| and all three can exist without tracking your life.
| MBCook wrote:
| The bill as I understand it from reading an article or
| two still allows targeting based on content. So if you're
| watching videos about car maintenance, they can put up
| ads for Pep Boys. They're not banned from advertising
| totally.
|
| What they can't do is put up ads for vacuum cleaners
| because you were searching for them on another site or
| emailed somebody about them.
| fendy3002 wrote:
| Why nowadays people associated ads with targeted ads?
| Google can still show ads, just not surveillance-based
| info ads.
|
| I'm fine with them showing ads or even contextual (based
| on youtube content, blog content, etc) ads or targeted
| geography (based on ip address, which is already public)
| ads which don't need surveillance at all.
| MBCook wrote:
| https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/18/22889903/democrats-
| target...
|
| Bill was just announced today.
| mrkramer wrote:
| >Americans might get worse, less relevant, and less helpful
| versions of products like Google Search and Maps
|
| Yea don't do it Google Search is already bad enough.
| [deleted]
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Wow, is this a bad post. Hand-wavey discussion of "these bills"
| without even the name of them (let alone a thomas.loc.gov
| link)... Isn't Google an internet company? What's the call-to-
| action for the reader... Dial in to their Congressperson and
| complain about "these bills?"
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-01-18 23:01 UTC)