5 ms·

The press release is well written. It explains why Google is fined in an easy way to understand, covering most aspects; what is the problematic behavior, why it

The press release is well written. It explains why Google is fined in an easy way to understand, covering most aspects; what is the problematic behavior, why it is considered as problematic, which data lead to this decision, etc, whilst not painting the company in a negative light. Opinions on the decision will sure differ among readers, but I think the decision is in place with the majority of EU citizens' consensus.

flexie 9y ago
Absolutely. Next up, the Adsense and Android antitrust cases. How do I know? I googled it: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-google-antitrust-idUSKBN18I1EV http://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-google-antitrust-idUSKB...
- nvgjug 9y ago
  > How do I know? Umm, it says so in the article, the googling was unnecessary.
- devoply 9y ago
  At this point they are also apparently abusing their capcha. You use it from Firefox, solve like 3 different captcha, my most recent experience with Cloudflare. Use it from Chrome, instant check after failing a login. And it's from the same IP that has done it over and over again. If you were the least bit intelligent you would not do this... unless you were trying to make the user experience of other browsers worse than yours by abusing a commonly offered service that you offer for free. Going forward this is worrying for other Google services as well and their cloud offering. Are they going to add a delay in responding to certain browsers, I dunno. Maybe there is a reasonable explanation, I dunno
  - charlesdm 9y ago
    I guess they assume, if you're actually loading from Chrome, you're probably not a bot? They're probably checking for more than just a simple user agent? That said, as far as I know (I'll keep an eye on it), I haven't always received an instant check in Chrome when dealing with a captcha.
  - johansch 9y ago
    Now try the same thing with cookies deleted in both browsers. Or in incognito/private mode.
  - tokenizerrr 9y ago
    They do a lot of profiling. Like if you're logged into a google account at the time, and other session checks. Perhaps your browsers had different cookies/localStorage, which could explain it.
    - devoply 9y ago
      Say that this is true. Google can only use its own data from its own browser to improve the web and penalizes everyone who is not using their browser. The result is the same. Google has a monopoly on your experience of the web... because it is optimized for users of its browser.
      - Aaargh20318 9y ago
        > Say that this is true. Google can only use its own data from its own browser to improve the web and penalizes everyone who is not using their browser. No, it also works on other browsers. I know because I exclusively use Safari and I encounter this one-click-captcha thing regularly. The thing is it only works on browsers you use regularly. It looks like they are analysing/tracking the behaviour of your browser (using google ads and other assets embedded in web pages) and determine if your browsing behaviour matches that of a human.
        devoply 9y ago
        Okay say that this is true, then if you want any sort of decent user experience you MUST let Google track you and analyze your behavior. So many ways for Google to win. So many ways for the user to lose. I do run a bunch of stuff on my Firefox to prevent that, perhaps that's a reasonable explanation as to why. Google owns the server, Google owns the client, Google owns DNS, Google owns domains, Google even owns > 50% of mobile. It's way too much ownership under one roof.
        tokenizerrr 9y ago
        Yes that is pretty much the entire idea. If you don't let them track you, they don't have a reasonable assurance that you're a real legit non-malicious human being. So you get to fill out the actual captcha. Pretty sweet deal, yeah? 99% of the population gets an easy checkbox, and all the people who care just need to fill out some questions to prove they're not a bot. It's not like you're blocked from using the form.
  - snakeanus 9y ago
    Last time I tried to login to namecheap with firefox I got like 5 captcha checks (select all tiles with signs) and ended up with the annoying one that says "click on the tiles until you don't see any more cars", the annoying part with that was that it took AGES until the new images appeared. When I tried the audio thing it said "we are sorry but you computer is sending up automated network requests" or something like that. When I tried again with chromium it got instantly verified.
lvoudour 9y ago
I came to say exactly that. That's a very well written statement that clarifies the situation more than any news outlet I happened to read on the case. As for the decision, it may seem unfair for Google, but the European commission has to look at the bigger picture: its search dominance is so big that it gives Google an unfair advantage when competing in other business sectors, driving others out of competition even if they have a much better product. That's not good for society in the long run
- dmix 9y ago
  Google's search results have become more than just a directory of websites like it was in previous years. It now integrates tons of specialized results such as embedded videos and smart answers to direct questions. It will only move further and further away from simple lists of sites as their AI improves. I fear this fine will deter innovation here as any special results Google adds will be scrutinized heavily. It's also very possible the complex data they need for it's 'smart' results aren't available by integrating with other 3rd party services (at least not initially), which is likely why Google even created these competing services in the first place. If Google was merely a Yellow Pages style service as it was previously then I'd be more sympathetic to the idea of distorted rankings favouring Google services but that's becoming less and less the typical user experience.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >If Google was merely a Yellow Pages style service as it was previously then I'd be more sympathetic to the idea of distorted rankings favouring Google services but that's becoming less and less the typical user experience. Well, I'm primarily agains the idea of giving a single, non democratically controlled non-international entity, so much power. To the point where I don't care if Google is forced to stop innovating in being a "one stop shop" for the internet if that means more distributed sources and more distributed (even if lower quality and with fewer resources) innovation. Sometimes, when it comes to society, it's best to have less technology more uniformly distributed than a single source of highly advanced technology.
    - 9y ago
charlesdm 9y ago
Decisions, decisions. Is this Vestagers works again? I'm more interested in seeing how much of her work will actually hold up in court. Better to focus on 10 good cases, than spread yourself thin on 30 and lose 80% of them. I guess she'll be long gone by then. The joys of politics.
apatters 9y ago
Take the money Google made by breaking the law and give it to non-profit foundations which are dedicated to developing free/libre alternatives to Google services. This will kill two birds with one stone--firstly it will correct the economic damage Google has caused by abusing their monopoly position. Secondly it will make it harder for them to maintain and abuse their monopoly in the future. The software industry today is filled with companies who seek to establish a monopoly so that they can extract monopoly rents. This behavior almost always skirts the boundaries of legality, and it's getting worse. Companies are being created with the explicit business model of throwing huge sums of money at illegal activity in order to establish market dominance--see Uber. Monopolies are not good for markets and this belief is already reflected in our antitrust laws. We need to give those laws some teeth and come up with creative solutions that don't just punish bad behavior, but also encourage competition.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- vog 9y ago
  *> Take the money [...] give it to non-profit foundations Even better: Make Google pay them directly. I don't know if that is possible on European level, but here in Germany, fines are often paid directly from the criminal to the non-profit, which is usually chosen in a round-robin-like fashion from the local non-profits in the criminal's (or court's) region.

flexie 9y ago

Absolutely. Next up, the Adsense and Android antitrust cases. How do I know? I googled it: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-google-antitrust-idUSKBN18I1EV http://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-google-antitrust-idUSKB...

nvgjug 9y ago
> How do I know? Umm, it says so in the article, the googling was unnecessary.
devoply 9y ago
At this point they are also apparently abusing their capcha. You use it from Firefox, solve like 3 different captcha, my most recent experience with Cloudflare. Use it from Chrome, instant check after failing a login. And it's from the same IP that has done it over and over again. If you were the least bit intelligent you would not do this... unless you were trying to make the user experience of other browsers worse than yours by abusing a commonly offered service that you offer for free. Going forward this is worrying for other Google services as well and their cloud offering. Are they going to add a delay in responding to certain browsers, I dunno. Maybe there is a reasonable explanation, I dunno
- charlesdm 9y ago
  I guess they assume, if you're actually loading from Chrome, you're probably not a bot? They're probably checking for more than just a simple user agent? That said, as far as I know (I'll keep an eye on it), I haven't always received an instant check in Chrome when dealing with a captcha.
- johansch 9y ago
  Now try the same thing with cookies deleted in both browsers. Or in incognito/private mode.
- tokenizerrr 9y ago
  They do a lot of profiling. Like if you're logged into a google account at the time, and other session checks. Perhaps your browsers had different cookies/localStorage, which could explain it.
  - devoply 9y ago
    Say that this is true. Google can only use its own data from its own browser to improve the web and penalizes everyone who is not using their browser. The result is the same. Google has a monopoly on your experience of the web... because it is optimized for users of its browser.
    - Aaargh20318 9y ago
      > Say that this is true. Google can only use its own data from its own browser to improve the web and penalizes everyone who is not using their browser. No, it also works on other browsers. I know because I exclusively use Safari and I encounter this one-click-captcha thing regularly. The thing is it only works on browsers you use regularly. It looks like they are analysing/tracking the behaviour of your browser (using google ads and other assets embedded in web pages) and determine if your browsing behaviour matches that of a human.
      - devoply 9y ago
        Okay say that this is true, then if you want any sort of decent user experience you MUST let Google track you and analyze your behavior. So many ways for Google to win. So many ways for the user to lose. I do run a bunch of stuff on my Firefox to prevent that, perhaps that's a reasonable explanation as to why. Google owns the server, Google owns the client, Google owns DNS, Google owns domains, Google even owns > 50% of mobile. It's way too much ownership under one roof.
        tokenizerrr 9y ago
        Yes that is pretty much the entire idea. If you don't let them track you, they don't have a reasonable assurance that you're a real legit non-malicious human being. So you get to fill out the actual captcha. Pretty sweet deal, yeah? 99% of the population gets an easy checkbox, and all the people who care just need to fill out some questions to prove they're not a bot. It's not like you're blocked from using the form.
- snakeanus 9y ago
  Last time I tried to login to namecheap with firefox I got like 5 captcha checks (select all tiles with signs) and ended up with the annoying one that says "click on the tiles until you don't see any more cars", the annoying part with that was that it took AGES until the new images appeared. When I tried the audio thing it said "we are sorry but you computer is sending up automated network requests" or something like that. When I tried again with chromium it got instantly verified.

lvoudour 9y ago

I came to say exactly that. That's a very well written statement that clarifies the situation more than any news outlet I happened to read on the case. As for the decision, it may seem unfair for Google, but the European commission has to look at the bigger picture: its search dominance is so big that it gives Google an unfair advantage when competing in other business sectors, driving others out of competition even if they have a much better product. That's not good for society in the long run

dmix 9y ago
Google's search results have become more than just a directory of websites like it was in previous years. It now integrates tons of specialized results such as embedded videos and smart answers to direct questions. It will only move further and further away from simple lists of sites as their AI improves. I fear this fine will deter innovation here as any special results Google adds will be scrutinized heavily. It's also very possible the complex data they need for it's 'smart' results aren't available by integrating with other 3rd party services (at least not initially), which is likely why Google even created these competing services in the first place. If Google was merely a Yellow Pages style service as it was previously then I'd be more sympathetic to the idea of distorted rankings favouring Google services but that's becoming less and less the typical user experience.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >If Google was merely a Yellow Pages style service as it was previously then I'd be more sympathetic to the idea of distorted rankings favouring Google services but that's becoming less and less the typical user experience. Well, I'm primarily agains the idea of giving a single, non democratically controlled non-international entity, so much power. To the point where I don't care if Google is forced to stop innovating in being a "one stop shop" for the internet if that means more distributed sources and more distributed (even if lower quality and with fewer resources) innovation. Sometimes, when it comes to society, it's best to have less technology more uniformly distributed than a single source of highly advanced technology.
  - 9y ago

charlesdm 9y ago

Decisions, decisions. Is this Vestagers works again? I'm more interested in seeing how much of her work will actually hold up in court. Better to focus on 10 good cases, than spread yourself thin on 30 and lose 80% of them. I guess she'll be long gone by then. The joys of politics.

apatters 9y ago

Take the money Google made by breaking the law and give it to non-profit foundations which are dedicated to developing free/libre alternatives to Google services. This will kill two birds with one stone--firstly it will correct the economic damage Google has caused by abusing their monopoly position. Secondly it will make it harder for them to maintain and abuse their monopoly in the future. The software industry today is filled with companies who seek to establish a monopoly so that they can extract monopoly rents. This behavior almost always skirts the boundaries of legality, and it's getting worse. Companies are being created with the explicit business model of throwing huge sums of money at illegal activity in order to establish market dominance--see Uber. Monopolies are not good for markets and this belief is already reflected in our antitrust laws. We need to give those laws some teeth and come up with creative solutions that don't just punish bad behavior, but also encourage competition.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
vog 9y ago
*> Take the money [...] give it to non-profit foundations Even better: Make Google pay them directly. I don't know if that is possible on European level, but here in Germany, fines are often paid directly from the criminal to the non-profit, which is usually chosen in a round-robin-like fashion from the local non-profits in the criminal's (or court's) region.