| Trillions of dollars are spent on advertising outside of Google. You can advertise in print, billboards, radio and television ads, Netflix, or on social media behemoths. Hackers call every big business they do not like a "monopoly". What's next, Burger King is a monopoly? I dislike Google more than most and would never buy nor sell ads with them, but they have no monopoly on advertising. |
| |
| ▲ | afavour 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I’m sorry, this perspective is absurd. I’m talking about a web site that shows ads. You’re suggesting they pivot to running off billboards? To creating TV shows? > What’s next, Burger King is a monopoly? I think this just illustrates that you’re not grasping the concept. Of course Burger King isn’t a monopoly. With my car when looking for a drive through dining experience I can go to McDonalds. Or Wendy’s. Or whatever. When operating a small to medium size web site that depends on advertising for revenue the viable alternatives to Google essentially don’t exist. | | |
| ▲ | carlosjobim 6 days ago | parent [-] | | Situation 1: You want to advertise your product or service. There are endless options outside of Google, including some options where the audience is counted in the hundreds of millions. Situation 2: You want to let others advertise their products or service in your space. There is an endless amount of companies which you can contact to make advertising deals. If you are too lazy to do that and want a third party to take care of it, then you can use Google as a middle man. But they are not obliged to do business with you. If the justice wants to go after Google, then they could (and should) prosecute Google (and Meta, and Twitter) for all the scam and malware ads they permit through their platform. That is billions of dollars of money laundering, and the CEOs should be imprisoned for this. For life. |
| |
| ▲ | CPLX 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I dislike Google more than most and would never buy nor sell ads with them, but they have no monopoly on advertising You’re commenting on an article with the title “Google is illegally monopolizing” which is reporting on the official verdict of a federal trial where Google was well represented and lost. | | |
| ▲ | carlosjobim 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Monopoly is a real word with a real meaning. It doesn't matter what any kind of judge "decides", he does not have the authority to change the meanings of words according to his humors. Google might be doing anti-competitive or fraudulent actions, but let's use the proper terms in the proper places. Just like there is a difference between theft, burglary and robbery. | | |
| ▲ | CPLX 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Monopoly, and the degree to which Google obtained a monopoly in the defined market examined in this case, is a legal question. So indeed it does matter what a judge decides after a trial where the evidence was examined and a conclusion reached. You might even argue that there’s no other definition less abitrary than this one, and it’s your understanding of what the word means that needs revision. | | |
| ▲ | carlosjobim 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Your argument is simply appeal to authority. The truth is still the truth no matter what men do or decide. If the judge calls Google a monopoly in advertising, he is obviously wrong, and nobody has any duty to pretend that he is right. Both you and I can think for ourselves. | | |
| ▲ | CPLX 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes my argument is an appeal to authority. That’s the right approach to answering a legal question. An appeal to authority is an excellent way to argue when the authority in question has the ability to determine and define the answer in question. Calling a company an illegal monopoly at the ci conclusion of a trial is analogous to calling a person a convicted murderer because a court says they are. Do you have your own definition of a kilometer too? | | |
| ▲ | carlosjobim a day ago | parent [-] | | Who are the persons who has to respect the judge (the authority) when he is flagrantly wrong in his decision? The justice system has to respect that decision. Google and the other involved parties have to respect that decision. You and me however, are not involved in any way, and do not have to respect anything this ignorant judge says or decides. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
