Remix clone Hacker News

And crucially, there are leaked emails, other evidence that demonstrate (at the very least historical and occasional) corruption of this dual- (multi?) agency arrangement. Among the allegations:

The Google ad exchange favored its own platforms, limiting the ability of other exchanges to compete fairly in bidding for ad inventory. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-s...

In limiting the number of bidders, Google inflated the prices for ad inventory. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-26/closing-arguments-giv...

Google engaged in bid rigging where competitors agree on who will win a bid, again to inflate prices. https://www.justice.gov/atr/preventing-and-detecting-bid-rig...

Google entered market allocation agreements to create an unfair playing field. https://www.winston.com/en/insights-news/avoiding-antitrust-...

▲

fn-mote 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

I'm willing to believe there's an issue with Google's ad sales, but this comment doesn't have the specifics I'm interested in - in spite of all of the citations.

> In limiting the number of bidders, Google inflated the prices for ad inventory. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-26/closing-arguments-giv...

I had a hard time finding any specifics in that article. It's about closing arguments and does not even mention the number of bidders.

The DOJ press release [1] would be a better citation.

> Google engaged in bid rigging where competitors agree on who will win a bid, again to inflate prices. https://www.justice.gov/atr/preventing-and-detecting-bid-rig...

Note that this link is just to the definition of bid rigging, not an accusation against google.

> Google entered market allocation agreements to create an unfair playing field. https://www.winston.com/en/insights-news/avoiding-antitrust-...

This is an article "Avoiding Antitrust Issues In Search Term Ad Agreements".

[1]: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/press-release/file/1563...

▲

hn_throwaway_99 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Thank you very much for your comment. It used to be my favorite saying was "lie with statistics". I think it needs to be updated to "lie with citations".

Frankly, I think what the parent comment is doing is flat-out lying. Or else they were doing some kind of test to see if people actually read citations.

The last two you quote are especially egregious. E.g. saying "Google engaged in bid rigging where competitors agree on who will win a bid, again to inflate prices. https://www.justice.gov/atr/preventing-and-detecting-bid-rig... gives the clear implication that the link supports the antecedent. hammock's comment is complete bullshit.

	▲	a123b456c 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		You could just read the lawsuit. It has everything you're looking for, sourced from internal Google communications, and is written in plain language. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/press-release/file/1563...

▲

zombiwoof 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Wasn’t part of the Double Click acquisition some sort of guarantee this exact situation wouldn’t happen?

▲

andreimackenzie 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> In limiting the number of bidders, Google inflated the prices for ad inventory.

This part doesn't make sense to me. Limiting bidders should drive the price down, because fewer advertisers are competing for the same potential ad impression. The article describes Google's influence as "Google controls the auction-style system," which is a bit more open-ended about the specific alleged practices.

▲

InsomniacL 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

> It was argued that this approach allows Google to charge higher prices to advertisers while sending less revenue to publishers such as news websites.

It could depend on how they 'limit the number of bidders'. If they sell seats to be able to bid, then the bids are lower to account for that, and publishers get a share of the bid, not the fee bidders pay. I'm guessing though...

	▲	jvanderbot 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		You could limit to one mark and a bunch of planted bidders in an attempt to control competition. If you win with your plants, you get to pay yourself anyway.

▲

sgc 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think they meant that Google managed to limit the number of bidders for ad placement - they shut out other advertising groups -, so they could then charge what they want to those who need to advertise their business or perish, and take what they want from websites that publish ads as well (take a larger cut from the 'ad inventory' understood either as ad space or ads to be published). In this sense the linked article states:

"The US argues that Google used its financial power to acquire potential rivals and corner the ad tech market, leaving advertisers and publishers with no choice but to use its technology."

▲

6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

thaumasiotes 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> In limiting the number of bidders, Google inflated the prices for ad inventory. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-26/closing-arguments-giv...

Note that this link says absolutely nothing to support the sentence before it. Which isn't a surprise given that limiting the number of bidders could hardly drive the prices those bidders are paying up. But the issue isn't even mentioned.

	▲	5 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	econ 5 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Im not sure but I think what they mean is that if you chose adsense the TOS says you may not display ads from other providers.

▲

pyrale 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

If we're to compare Google's situation to that of finance companies on other markets, even a small part of what Google did would result in a significant part of their execs and maybe a few tech staff wearing orange jumpsuits for these companies. Given the nature of Google's transgression and the way they've been robbing their own customers, they'd deserve it.

There's a case to be made that on top of google being broken up, the market should be heavily regulated in order to restore trust for market participants.