4 ms·

It is worth remembering the The Intercept used to (still does?) work with and publish material from a Oracle-funded nonprofit that existed for the sole purpose

It is worth remembering the The Intercept used to (still does?) work with and publish material from a Oracle-funded nonprofit that existed for the sole purpose of creating bad PR for Google: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/anti-google-research-group-in-washington-is-funded-by-oracle/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/anti-google-rese...

partiallypro 9y ago
That may be true, but what is untrue about the article? How is it ok for a company to be the largest ad company in the world, while controlling the most popular browser on the planet and just announced a service that will kill off its competitors (as if they have many at all?) That's monopolistic behavior. Ask yourself, if Microsoft did this or something similar, would they get hit with anti-trust? Yes.
- ucaetano 9y ago
  No, it isn't monopolistic. Look at ad prices continuously going down. "Monopoly" isn't a buzz word that you throw around randomly. It doesn't even have to do necessarily with market share or control or the market. There is no monopoly on the ad space, not by very, very far.
  - partiallypro 9y ago
    Microsoft was brought up on anti-trust charges because it packaged a browser with its operating system. Google controls the majority of ads on extended networks, it controls almost all publisher ads (even Microsoft network sites run Google ads.) If publishers have no where to go but Google, how is that not a monopoly? Ignore search, ignore Facebook and Twitter, those are first party. Google has 0 competition on extended network sites, and this ensures it never will.
    - ucaetano 9y ago
      "Ignore search, ignore Facebook and Twitter, those are first party" You're not getting the point: extended network sites is not an isolated product. It exists as a part of a large sub-segment (online ads) which part of an even larger market (ads). You can take a single sub-sub-segment and call it a monopoly. Its doesn't matter if Coke had 95% of the colas market (it does in several countries), it isn't a monopoly, because it competes with thousands of other drinks. And you can't just look at market share, you need to look at prices. CPMs are falling dramatically across the board, which is completely incompatible with a monopoly. There is the economical definition of a monopoly, and then there's the layman definition, which means whatever you want to mean.
ionised 9y ago
What's wrong with creating bad PR if it's true?
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  Partial (selected) truth isn't truth, it's bias.

partiallypro 9y ago

That may be true, but what is untrue about the article? How is it ok for a company to be the largest ad company in the world, while controlling the most popular browser on the planet and just announced a service that will kill off its competitors (as if they have many at all?) That's monopolistic behavior. Ask yourself, if Microsoft did this or something similar, would they get hit with anti-trust? Yes.

ucaetano 9y ago
No, it isn't monopolistic. Look at ad prices continuously going down. "Monopoly" isn't a buzz word that you throw around randomly. It doesn't even have to do necessarily with market share or control or the market. There is no monopoly on the ad space, not by very, very far.
- partiallypro 9y ago
  Microsoft was brought up on anti-trust charges because it packaged a browser with its operating system. Google controls the majority of ads on extended networks, it controls almost all publisher ads (even Microsoft network sites run Google ads.) If publishers have no where to go but Google, how is that not a monopoly? Ignore search, ignore Facebook and Twitter, those are first party. Google has 0 competition on extended network sites, and this ensures it never will.
  - ucaetano 9y ago
    "Ignore search, ignore Facebook and Twitter, those are first party" You're not getting the point: extended network sites is not an isolated product. It exists as a part of a large sub-segment (online ads) which part of an even larger market (ads). You can take a single sub-sub-segment and call it a monopoly. Its doesn't matter if Coke had 95% of the colas market (it does in several countries), it isn't a monopoly, because it competes with thousands of other drinks. And you can't just look at market share, you need to look at prices. CPMs are falling dramatically across the board, which is completely incompatible with a monopoly. There is the economical definition of a monopoly, and then there's the layman definition, which means whatever you want to mean.

ionised 9y ago

What's wrong with creating bad PR if it's true?

dredmorbius 9y ago
Partial (selected) truth isn't truth, it's bias.