4 ms·

The EU are verging on gangsterism, extorting businesses for increasingly specious violations and terms. Of course Google favour their affiliates on THEIR web se

The EU are verging on gangsterism, extorting businesses for increasingly specious violations and terms. Of course Google favour their affiliates on THEIR web services, their property.

s_kilk 9y ago
I find the manic defense of corporate interests over the interests of the public more sickening.
- mehwoot 9y ago
  Welcome to America
  - vegancap 9y ago
    America? I thought this was Google vs the EU?
    - ionised 9y ago
      Americans seem to think this is the US versus the EU.
      - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
        As an American who wishes his government protected him as well as the EU is protecting their citizens, I kinda resent being grouped in here. Google fans would like to make this about US vs. the EU, because it misdirects away from Google's illegal actions. But multiple US companies asked for and supported this investigation against Google. And I wish our government laid down the same charges against them here.
        ionised 9y ago
        My understanding is that the same anti-trust protections exist in the US, perhaps even stronger ones, but were not applied. Is this just a case of lobbying corruption?
        ocdtrekkie 9y ago
        I summarized the bulk of the issue here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14644723 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14644723 The FTC's staff have previously recommended filing charges against Google, and then the people up the ladder buried it.
- vegancap 9y ago
  I just don't understand how surfacing affiliated ads over others on Google own sites is a big deal? They're a revenue generating service, of course they're going to favour ad networks and channels which benefit them the most financially. To fine a private business €2.4bn for conducting pretty standard business practices.
  - s_kilk 9y ago
    Because the user has an expectation that they'll be shown the best results, not the most self-shilled results.
    - vegancap 9y ago
      Surely as a user you'd view promoted shopping results in Google with a pinch of salt and look around first? I just don't agree that warrants a €2.4bn fine. Again, unless I've misunderstood the full picture
      - ionised 9y ago
        > Surely as a user you'd view promoted shopping results in Google with a pinch of salt and look around first? Most users don't.
stctgion 9y ago
Monopolies are sickening. I hope for bigger fines in the future
- lerpa 9y ago
  Sure, and I think they should also fine for a couple of thousands the evil people that are supporting that monopoly and making it possible, by using such sickening services Google provides.
matthewmacleod 9y ago
I have absolutely no framework for understanding this attitude. I've got to assume you're aware of things like unfair competition, antitrust laws, market distortions and so on. The idea is that a disproportionately influential market participant can cause the market to become less free by virtue of inhibiting competition – competition being a vital part of a free market. Rules against abusing a dominant market position are there specifically to try and prevent abuse from happening. I could understand the reasonableness of arguing about the specifics of Google's market dominance or the degree to which this activity was a problem. But "increasingly specious violations and terms" and "absolutely sickening" seem to suggest you haven't really considered the validity of such rules.
- vegancap 9y ago
  Unless I've misunderstood what the fine was for. Fining a private business €2.4bn for promoting its own affiliates over other networks, how is that in any way an abnormal business practice? I'm not trying to be controversial, I just don't understand how that warrants such a hefty fine.
  - matthewmacleod 9y ago
    It's because there are additional regulatory requirements on businesses that have disproportionate market influence. Promoting your own services in general is fine. But when a huge, huge majority of the market uses your service for discovery, your decision to promote your own services over competitors' damages competition in the market — users end up with less choice in practice, even though they could theoretically switch to another service. Those rules exist to try and prevent this sort of abuse happening.
  - andmarios 9y ago
    According to the press release, Google went into the product comparison sector and took about 80% of the pie without competing with other product comparison engines, instead they just used their dominant position in search. If they had competed and won this share fairly, they wouldn't get a fine. Remember that EU, during these years was consistently the largest, or the second largest, depending on year, economy of the world, so this 80% is huge and justifies the size of the fine.

The EU are verging on gangsterism, extorting businesses for increasingly specious violations and terms. Of course Google favour their affiliates on THEIR web services, their property.

s_kilk 9y ago

I find the manic defense of corporate interests over the interests of the public more sickening.

mehwoot 9y ago
Welcome to America
- vegancap 9y ago
  America? I thought this was Google vs the EU?
  - ionised 9y ago
    Americans seem to think this is the US versus the EU.
    - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
      As an American who wishes his government protected him as well as the EU is protecting their citizens, I kinda resent being grouped in here. Google fans would like to make this about US vs. the EU, because it misdirects away from Google's illegal actions. But multiple US companies asked for and supported this investigation against Google. And I wish our government laid down the same charges against them here.
      - ionised 9y ago
        My understanding is that the same anti-trust protections exist in the US, perhaps even stronger ones, but were not applied. Is this just a case of lobbying corruption?
        ocdtrekkie 9y ago
        I summarized the bulk of the issue here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14644723 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14644723 The FTC's staff have previously recommended filing charges against Google, and then the people up the ladder buried it.
vegancap 9y ago
I just don't understand how surfacing affiliated ads over others on Google own sites is a big deal? They're a revenue generating service, of course they're going to favour ad networks and channels which benefit them the most financially. To fine a private business €2.4bn for conducting pretty standard business practices.
- s_kilk 9y ago
  Because the user has an expectation that they'll be shown the best results, not the most self-shilled results.
  - vegancap 9y ago
    Surely as a user you'd view promoted shopping results in Google with a pinch of salt and look around first? I just don't agree that warrants a €2.4bn fine. Again, unless I've misunderstood the full picture
    - ionised 9y ago
      > Surely as a user you'd view promoted shopping results in Google with a pinch of salt and look around first? Most users don't.

stctgion 9y ago

Monopolies are sickening. I hope for bigger fines in the future

lerpa 9y ago
Sure, and I think they should also fine for a couple of thousands the evil people that are supporting that monopoly and making it possible, by using such sickening services Google provides.

matthewmacleod 9y ago

I have absolutely no framework for understanding this attitude. I've got to assume you're aware of things like unfair competition, antitrust laws, market distortions and so on. The idea is that a disproportionately influential market participant can cause the market to become less free by virtue of inhibiting competition – competition being a vital part of a free market. Rules against abusing a dominant market position are there specifically to try and prevent abuse from happening. I could understand the reasonableness of arguing about the specifics of Google's market dominance or the degree to which this activity was a problem. But "increasingly specious violations and terms" and "absolutely sickening" seem to suggest you haven't really considered the validity of such rules.

vegancap 9y ago
Unless I've misunderstood what the fine was for. Fining a private business €2.4bn for promoting its own affiliates over other networks, how is that in any way an abnormal business practice? I'm not trying to be controversial, I just don't understand how that warrants such a hefty fine.
- matthewmacleod 9y ago
  It's because there are additional regulatory requirements on businesses that have disproportionate market influence. Promoting your own services in general is fine. But when a huge, huge majority of the market uses your service for discovery, your decision to promote your own services over competitors' damages competition in the market — users end up with less choice in practice, even though they could theoretically switch to another service. Those rules exist to try and prevent this sort of abuse happening.
- andmarios 9y ago
  According to the press release, Google went into the product comparison sector and took about 80% of the pie without competing with other product comparison engines, instead they just used their dominant position in search. If they had competed and won this share fairly, they wouldn't get a fine. Remember that EU, during these years was consistently the largest, or the second largest, depending on year, economy of the world, so this 80% is huge and justifies the size of the fine.