16 ms·

As a consumer, I have (much) more trust that my interests are advanced by the EU than google. This is an opinion which I don't feel the need to convert anyone

by zdkl 9y ago

As a consumer, I have (much) more trust that my interests are advanced by the EU than google. This is an opinion which I don't feel the need to convert anyone to but I really don't understand the opposite view. Can someone explain why they believe google and other "emerging" power centers saveguard their interests better than the EU?

mythz 9y ago
Why are you using Google then? Use a Service you can trust or you believe has your best interests at heart.
- watbe 9y ago
  The answer to your question is given by the EC decision: > There are also high barriers to entry in these markets, in part because of network effects: the more consumers use a search engine, the more attractive it becomes to advertisers. The profits generated can then be used to attract even more consumers. Similarly, the data a search engine gathers about consumers can in turn be used to improve results. Simply put, the EC believes that Google is a barrier to any viable competition, so there's no ability to develop a competitive service to Google's own.
  - mythz 9y ago
    Sounds like they're punishing commercial success, i.e. the goals of most public corporations. Search has been Google's core competency since their inception, they were much smaller than the existing Search engines when they started out but were able to create a better product that users preferred and since that time they've been able to amass a wealth of knowledge, experience and resources. Of course any company is going to have a hard time trying to compete with them now, but I don't see why they need to be punished for executing so well on their core mission.
    - tripzilch 9y ago
      """Market dominance is, as such, not illegal under EU antitrust rules. However, dominant companies have a special responsibility not to abuse their powerful market position by restricting competition, either in the market where they are dominant or in separate markets.""" It's not about "punishing" but it is about holding dominant companies responsible for handling the great power that comes with this dominance. Companies don't usually do this by themselves because like you say, their goals are orthogonal to this. Doesn't mean it's contrary to their goals (which would be "punishing", in a sense), but "commercial success" or profit just isn't a force that drives ethical behaviour and responsibility. It's not. Things would be so much easier if they were.
    - zdkl 9y ago
      Well, I believe the court has considered their position and feels that "punishing" google is not a matter of commercial success but of anti trust law (the "companies don't have inner pressure to be moral" argument). One's opinion as to whether the court is acting in good faith with regards to its mandate is a matter of faith, I'll concede that; I personnaly have more faith in our individual ability to reorient the court/EUs mandate than to exercise pressure on google/corporations who are filling the new power center that comes with the internet and mass information distribution.
      - aparvinash 9y ago
        Important correction its not the court its the commission. It seems similar to prosecutor handing down the sentence and burden of proof hence falls upon the accused
  - telcodud 9y ago
    Step 1: "the more consumers use a search engine" --> presumably because said consumers like the product (search engine) Step 2: "more attractive to advertisers" Step 3: "profits generated can then be used to attract even more consumers" Wait, why were consumers attracted by the product (search engine) in the 1st step, but were convinced by the profits in the 3rd step?
    - LanceH 9y ago
      Because they're a US company, duh. Just like Toyota in the unintended acceleration problem was quickly found guilty of not being GM or Ford.
  - euyyn 9y ago
    > The profits generated can then be used to attract even more consumers. Wut?
Mahn 9y ago
Personally, as an EU citizen, I don't believe that Google is advancing my interests and rights, but I also don't believe that the EU commission dictating what Google can or cannot do based on who is lobbying and how much money is at stake has the consumer's best interests in mind. To me these fines seem motivated by money, not consumer rights.
- refulgentis 9y ago
  +1. While adding billions to their coffers may not be the motivation, there's a ravenous appetite to figure out how to distribute wealth of this obscenely rich generation of multinationals. This reeks of an ineffectual political institution grasping for one of the few solutions it can implement.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    Would you prefer the EU simply prevent Google from operating in their borders? That's always an option. It's so refreshing to see checks and balances on US multinationals, and I say that as a US citizen.
- disiplus 9y ago
  on what is this based. the EU commision distroyed roaming between EU members, and im pretty sure they had all the lobiying from mobile operators to not do it.
  - honestoHeminway 9y ago
    Its called democracy- its when a goverment pushes the interests of its people.
    - lerpa 9y ago
      It's actually called authoritarianism - when pushing what government wants violates other people's rights to do business as they please even if it isn't criminal activity.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
tripzilch 9y ago
This. Google's data just shows their interests happen to align with "what people usually prefer" this time, but we know that is not what motivates google. Not at all. They have acted against "what people usually prefer" many, many times before when it was beneficial to their own interests. Additionally, "what people usually prefer" is completely orthogonal to the EU antitrust ruling, which is about holding companies responsible for the power that comes with market dominance. Companies don't really have ethics or humanity (the way people do), unless we force them to. "We" in this case refers to the whole of society, including the people making up the company. In particular as companies grow very large, even if the people making up the company are ethical, humane and good, THEY are still tasked to wrangle a wild beast that is mostly just hungry for profits, and try to steer it to do Good and not Bad because it doesn't see there is a difference. But even then, they can use help from the rest of society, and regulations can be part of this help.
stickfigure 9y ago
As a consumer, I have (much) more trust that my interests are advanced by the EU than google. The same people that brought you that idiotic cookies warning?
- AsyncAwait 9y ago
  Yes, the cookie notices are a bad implementation of a good policy, (informing users that they're being tracked.)
  - oh_sigh 9y ago
    Cookies don't imply tracking - that is just one use of them.
    - mpeg 9y ago
      And the EU cookie consent law doesn't apply when you're using cookies for most other purposes than tracking.
    - nicolaslem 9y ago
      The EU law on cookies is specifically about tracking cookies, not first-party cookies. See http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm#section_2 http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm#se...
  - stickfigure 9y ago
    No. The cookie notices are the natural consequence of a bad policy driven by a good motivation. Well-meaning but stupid busybodies are cluttering up my world. See also: California prop 65 warnings.
- erk__ 9y ago
  And the same people that are removing it.
- erk__ 9y ago
  And the same people that are removing it.
AndrewKemendo 9y ago
Can someone explain why they believe google and other "emerging" power centers saveguard their interests better than the EU? 1. Because it's in their long term best interest to have a customer for life (No political cycle) so they are more incentivized than a politician would be to support the interest of the consumer. 2. They have a more insight into user desires and actions on a day to day basis, meaning they can predict and "nudge" users in directions that are mutually beneficial.
- sgift 9y ago
  re 2. Or one which only looks mutually beneficial, but only benefits Google in reality.
  - AndrewKemendo 9y ago
    Can you give an unbiased concrete example (eg. tainted baby formula, collapsed bridge, corrupted hard drive from virus) of something that has benefited google to the direct harm of one of it's users? The biggest argument I've seen is that people don't like that they aggregate the data you give to them.
    - RubberShoes 9y ago
      AMP. This is entirely what the AMP argument has been all about.
      - AndrewKemendo 9y ago
        Really? Nobody benefits from AMP? I mean I get the complaints from developers and publishers, but even on HN I have seen support for AMP. This goes to the broader point though that Google wants to service the end user better based on their feedback (most sites are too big/load too slowly), so they created something simple that gives end users a faster, better and cheaper (lower mobile data cost) solution. In fact Google seems to be moving faster here because companies keep creating large websites to serve rich content that users find annoyingly slow. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/oct/11/google-amp-facebook-instant-articles-apple-news https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/oct/11/google-amp-fac...
oh_sigh 9y ago
At the very least you have no requirement to use Google. You don't have that option with the EU if you're in an EU country.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
siliconviking 9y ago
You mean just like they have forced millions of websites to show the "Warning: This site uses cookies" message (which arguably cost a fortune in compliance costs and user annyoance, but made no difference in the end)? I would encourage a "follow the money" train of thought when thinking about this. My question then becomes: if this money (the $2.7bn) did not accrue to the EU, or was not levied at all, do you still think the EU would still pursue this as ferociously as it has, just to protect the consumer?
- Toboe 9y ago
  >You mean just like they have forced millions of websites to show the "Warning: This site uses cookies" message The websites could have just stopped using tracking cookies.
dontnotice 9y ago
It's not about you and who you trust the most, it's about if this makes sense or not. The EU is not infallible, they are subject to political pressures and there have been enough of that in this case that they started asking the wrong questions and reached the inevitable wrong conclusions, which are easy to welcome since they serve their protectionist instincts. Google is not a utility, it's not the water company nor the electric company, or even your ISP, it's essentially a website one which you are free to use or not and the price of admission and switching and opportunity costs are nil, same as for all competing websites, so dictating what Google's website can display and declaring it's contents illegal and worthy of billion dollar fines makes zero sense.
CamperBob2 9y ago
Really? As a consumer, what has the EU done for you lately, compared to what Google and other Internet "monopolies" have done for you? One monopoly is no more moral than another simply because the first one has guns and the second doesn't.
bigleagueposter 9y ago
I have no idea whose bribes control the corrupt EU bureaucracy. At least Google helps me by moving stuff from windows into the browser.

by zdkl 9y ago

mythz 9y ago

Why are you using Google then? Use a Service you can trust or you believe has your best interests at heart.

watbe 9y ago
The answer to your question is given by the EC decision: > There are also high barriers to entry in these markets, in part because of network effects: the more consumers use a search engine, the more attractive it becomes to advertisers. The profits generated can then be used to attract even more consumers. Similarly, the data a search engine gathers about consumers can in turn be used to improve results. Simply put, the EC believes that Google is a barrier to any viable competition, so there's no ability to develop a competitive service to Google's own.
- mythz 9y ago
  Sounds like they're punishing commercial success, i.e. the goals of most public corporations. Search has been Google's core competency since their inception, they were much smaller than the existing Search engines when they started out but were able to create a better product that users preferred and since that time they've been able to amass a wealth of knowledge, experience and resources. Of course any company is going to have a hard time trying to compete with them now, but I don't see why they need to be punished for executing so well on their core mission.
  - tripzilch 9y ago
    """Market dominance is, as such, not illegal under EU antitrust rules. However, dominant companies have a special responsibility not to abuse their powerful market position by restricting competition, either in the market where they are dominant or in separate markets.""" It's not about "punishing" but it is about holding dominant companies responsible for handling the great power that comes with this dominance. Companies don't usually do this by themselves because like you say, their goals are orthogonal to this. Doesn't mean it's contrary to their goals (which would be "punishing", in a sense), but "commercial success" or profit just isn't a force that drives ethical behaviour and responsibility. It's not. Things would be so much easier if they were.
  - zdkl 9y ago
    Well, I believe the court has considered their position and feels that "punishing" google is not a matter of commercial success but of anti trust law (the "companies don't have inner pressure to be moral" argument). One's opinion as to whether the court is acting in good faith with regards to its mandate is a matter of faith, I'll concede that; I personnaly have more faith in our individual ability to reorient the court/EUs mandate than to exercise pressure on google/corporations who are filling the new power center that comes with the internet and mass information distribution.
    - aparvinash 9y ago
      Important correction its not the court its the commission. It seems similar to prosecutor handing down the sentence and burden of proof hence falls upon the accused
- telcodud 9y ago
  Step 1: "the more consumers use a search engine" --> presumably because said consumers like the product (search engine) Step 2: "more attractive to advertisers" Step 3: "profits generated can then be used to attract even more consumers" Wait, why were consumers attracted by the product (search engine) in the 1st step, but were convinced by the profits in the 3rd step?
  - LanceH 9y ago
    Because they're a US company, duh. Just like Toyota in the unintended acceleration problem was quickly found guilty of not being GM or Ford.
- euyyn 9y ago
  > The profits generated can then be used to attract even more consumers. Wut?

Mahn 9y ago

Personally, as an EU citizen, I don't believe that Google is advancing my interests and rights, but I also don't believe that the EU commission dictating what Google can or cannot do based on who is lobbying and how much money is at stake has the consumer's best interests in mind. To me these fines seem motivated by money, not consumer rights.

refulgentis 9y ago
+1. While adding billions to their coffers may not be the motivation, there's a ravenous appetite to figure out how to distribute wealth of this obscenely rich generation of multinationals. This reeks of an ineffectual political institution grasping for one of the few solutions it can implement.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  Would you prefer the EU simply prevent Google from operating in their borders? That's always an option. It's so refreshing to see checks and balances on US multinationals, and I say that as a US citizen.
disiplus 9y ago
on what is this based. the EU commision distroyed roaming between EU members, and im pretty sure they had all the lobiying from mobile operators to not do it.
- honestoHeminway 9y ago
  Its called democracy- its when a goverment pushes the interests of its people.
  - lerpa 9y ago
    It's actually called authoritarianism - when pushing what government wants violates other people's rights to do business as they please even if it isn't criminal activity.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

tripzilch 9y ago

This. Google's data just shows their interests happen to align with "what people usually prefer" this time, but we know that is not what motivates google. Not at all. They have acted against "what people usually prefer" many, many times before when it was beneficial to their own interests. Additionally, "what people usually prefer" is completely orthogonal to the EU antitrust ruling, which is about holding companies responsible for the power that comes with market dominance. Companies don't really have ethics or humanity (the way people do), unless we force them to. "We" in this case refers to the whole of society, including the people making up the company. In particular as companies grow very large, even if the people making up the company are ethical, humane and good, THEY are still tasked to wrangle a wild beast that is mostly just hungry for profits, and try to steer it to do Good and not Bad because it doesn't see there is a difference. But even then, they can use help from the rest of society, and regulations can be part of this help.

stickfigure 9y ago

As a consumer, I have (much) more trust that my interests are advanced by the EU than google. The same people that brought you that idiotic cookies warning?

AsyncAwait 9y ago
Yes, the cookie notices are a bad implementation of a good policy, (informing users that they're being tracked.)
- oh_sigh 9y ago
  Cookies don't imply tracking - that is just one use of them.
  - mpeg 9y ago
    And the EU cookie consent law doesn't apply when you're using cookies for most other purposes than tracking.
  - nicolaslem 9y ago
    The EU law on cookies is specifically about tracking cookies, not first-party cookies. See http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm#section_2 http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm#se...
- stickfigure 9y ago
  No. The cookie notices are the natural consequence of a bad policy driven by a good motivation. Well-meaning but stupid busybodies are cluttering up my world. See also: California prop 65 warnings.
erk__ 9y ago
And the same people that are removing it.
erk__ 9y ago
And the same people that are removing it.

AndrewKemendo 9y ago

Can someone explain why they believe google and other "emerging" power centers saveguard their interests better than the EU? 1. Because it's in their long term best interest to have a customer for life (No political cycle) so they are more incentivized than a politician would be to support the interest of the consumer. 2. They have a more insight into user desires and actions on a day to day basis, meaning they can predict and "nudge" users in directions that are mutually beneficial.

sgift 9y ago
re 2. Or one which only looks mutually beneficial, but only benefits Google in reality.
- AndrewKemendo 9y ago
  Can you give an unbiased concrete example (eg. tainted baby formula, collapsed bridge, corrupted hard drive from virus) of something that has benefited google to the direct harm of one of it's users? The biggest argument I've seen is that people don't like that they aggregate the data you give to them.
  - RubberShoes 9y ago
    AMP. This is entirely what the AMP argument has been all about.
    - AndrewKemendo 9y ago
      Really? Nobody benefits from AMP? I mean I get the complaints from developers and publishers, but even on HN I have seen support for AMP. This goes to the broader point though that Google wants to service the end user better based on their feedback (most sites are too big/load too slowly), so they created something simple that gives end users a faster, better and cheaper (lower mobile data cost) solution. In fact Google seems to be moving faster here because companies keep creating large websites to serve rich content that users find annoyingly slow. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/oct/11/google-amp-facebook-instant-articles-apple-news https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/oct/11/google-amp-fac...

oh_sigh 9y ago

At the very least you have no requirement to use Google. You don't have that option with the EU if you're in an EU country.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

siliconviking 9y ago

You mean just like they have forced millions of websites to show the "Warning: This site uses cookies" message (which arguably cost a fortune in compliance costs and user annyoance, but made no difference in the end)? I would encourage a "follow the money" train of thought when thinking about this. My question then becomes: if this money (the $2.7bn) did not accrue to the EU, or was not levied at all, do you still think the EU would still pursue this as ferociously as it has, just to protect the consumer?

Toboe 9y ago
>You mean just like they have forced millions of websites to show the "Warning: This site uses cookies" message The websites could have just stopped using tracking cookies.

dontnotice 9y ago

It's not about you and who you trust the most, it's about if this makes sense or not. The EU is not infallible, they are subject to political pressures and there have been enough of that in this case that they started asking the wrong questions and reached the inevitable wrong conclusions, which are easy to welcome since they serve their protectionist instincts. Google is not a utility, it's not the water company nor the electric company, or even your ISP, it's essentially a website one which you are free to use or not and the price of admission and switching and opportunity costs are nil, same as for all competing websites, so dictating what Google's website can display and declaring it's contents illegal and worthy of billion dollar fines makes zero sense.

CamperBob2 9y ago

Really? As a consumer, what has the EU done for you lately, compared to what Google and other Internet "monopolies" have done for you? One monopoly is no more moral than another simply because the first one has guns and the second doesn't.

bigleagueposter 9y ago

I have no idea whose bribes control the corrupt EU bureaucracy. At least Google helps me by moving stuff from windows into the browser.