7 ms·

I am surprised there has not been an antitrust case against Google and Facebook. Google is definitely abusing the monopoly position it has in search. The claim

by smg 9y ago

I am surprised there has not been an antitrust case against Google and Facebook. Google is definitely abusing the monopoly position it has in search. The claim that any user can switch to Bing by just typing in a different URL is ridiculous. The remedy that the original article suggest is right on point. The way search systems work these days is by learning from how users interact with them. Google's market share ensures that it will always have access to more tail queries and user's intent while asking them. Building a better search engines than Google is no longer about hiring engineers or investing in data centers, it is about having access to the data that Google has on searches. Just like the DOJ forced Microsoft to document and provide API's that were being used by IE and Office to all software companies, a case today that forces Google to share all the data that it collects on searches would help break its monopoly.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Cthulhu_ 9y ago
> The claim that any user can switch to Bing by just typing in a different URL is ridiculous. It's not though; people have a choice in this case, not so when it comes to e.g. ISPs or cell phone operators.
- Zhyl 9y ago
  And more people seem [0] to be exercising that choice. [0]https://duckduckgo.com/traffic.html https://duckduckgo.com/traffic.html
wbl 9y ago
And that makes Google noticeably worse then it used to be for many queries.
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  Right, so how much of a moat is that data really?
gaius 9y ago
a case today that forces Google to share all the data that it collects on searches would help break its monopoly. The only thing worse than Google having everyone’s search history is forcing them to reveal everyone’s search history. The data should be destroyed and new data not gathered. “You googled X on date D therefore we have concluded Y is a preexisting condition and your claim is denied”
- nappy-doo 9y ago
  Depending on the data, Google anonymizes the data in 30-180 days (most things are ≤34 days, and 180 is reserved for search).
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    A friendly reminder that there's no such thing as "anonymized data", there's only "anonymized until combined with other data sets".
    - ryandrake 9y ago
      A textbook example is the AOL search history release [1]. They went to the trouble of wiping user account information but left anonymous (but unique) per-user numeric identifiers. Oops, someone didn't think that one through. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_search_data_leak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_search_data_leak
      - Anon1096 9y ago
        How is that an example of one of the failures of anonimization of data? To me it just looks like AOL did a shitty job, not that the concept as a whole is a lost cause.
        TeMPOraL 9y ago
        Most breaches happen because someone "did a shitty job". The truth is, you're doing a shitty job if you don't recognize anonymization for what it is - essentially trying to have a cake and eat it too. In practice, it has specific constraints that must be met, and I'd judge the difficulty of doing a good job here to be similar to rolling out your own crypto. That is, unless you're a good statistician, you're better off not sharing the data (or not having it in the first place) than releasing it "anonymized".
elgenie 9y ago
Saying that there haven't been any antitrust cases against Google and Facebook is simply inaccurate. Google got popped with a 2.4 billion euro antitrust fine for abusing their search monopoly just last summer (example source: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jun/27/google-braces-for-record-breaking-1bn-fine-from-eu https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jun/27/google-brac...).
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  Yes, but there have not been any in the US. (This is likely because of the amount of money Google 'invests' in politicians.) Note that the EU case is only the first of three EU antitrust cases against Google. They're also about to get hit with (rumored to be even larger) fines for abuses with Android and AdSense.
  - ohtwenty 9y ago
    What about the other way around? Much of Google is US-gov't-funded
sillysaurus3 9y ago
This implies that a monopoly is bad. The government realizes how powerful Google's monopoly is. It's a monopoly on information. And that implies a monopoly on the rest of the world – at least, the part of it that uses Google. Any litigation would be spearheaded by the government. As long as Google plays ball with the backroom deals, they have nothing to worry about. If the NSA couldn't tap into the data behind their backs, they'll do it clandestinely but with Google's knowledge. This isn't as far fetched as it sounds. You're right that Google faces a monopoly breakup. But that gives the government all kinds of leverage into their treasure trove of human interaction.
jxdxbx 9y ago
Well, users can easily switch, to an extent (Google increasingly ties its services together, meaning you lose out if you use other Google products but not search). But, if you depend on incoming Google traffic, you can't "switch." It is this side of the equation where Google's search dominance is troubling. That, and ads.
- wbl 9y ago
  Ever pick up a tourist map? It's a pay to play list of recommendations.
mattlondon 9y ago
I switched to DuckDuckGo a while ago for all my personal devices/profiles and I have not looked back since. Quality of results is on a par to what I had using google.com. I still use gmail and youtube etc. Just change the settings in your browsers and you're done - takes about 11 seconds. The barrier to entry for someone like DDG is actually quite low I think - just have a look at how their traffic is growing (https://duckduckgo.com/traffic.html https://duckduckgo.com/traffic.html) and they're making a profit while doing it (http://fortune.com/2015/10/09/duckduckgo-profitable/ http://fortune.com/2015/10/09/duckduckgo-profitable/). DDG has proven that you can make a growing, profitable business in search that provides decent results without needing a million AI engineers mining the search data. I don't know what Bing search is like profitability-wise, but I am sure it is doing OK. I'd be keen to hear why you think that switching to another search engine is ridiculous? I cant think of any reasons why? I have no data, but I reckon that most users wouldn't even notice/realise if they were using another search engine (of course, the HN readership would notice immediately - we're not representative) , and I also reckon that of those that do about half of those would only realise because the look & feel is mildly different! :-) Based on my experience I really dont think they'd notice due to the quality of the results. But hey, I guess there are people who have niche queries they'll pull out to prove why DDG/Bing is inferior to Google. I guess some people dont remember what it was like before Google! The results from competitors are good IME.
- arstin 9y ago
  "I'd be keen to hear why you think that switching to another search engine is ridiculous?" I think you answered your own question: "I reckon that most users wouldn't even notice/realise if they were using another search engine". For example, the other night I wanted to watch a movie. I entered the title in the Chrome address bar. Google was automatically used of course (yes it's customizable through a few menus, but for most people that means it's auto Google). The first result had an option to rent the movie. I clicked "Rent". Google Play was used of course. And I gave Google $3. I don't personally mind this particular case, having long ago made the conscious choice to use Google Play over Apple or Amazon...or...ummm...for renting movies (mostly early Chromecast support). But it's a simple illustration of how Google isn't just a "search engine" that pulls up information you query when you want to surf the information superhighway. It's the automatic background interface for a great number of activities we do in our life. The fact most people probably don't even realize that is exactly one problem. (And this has solutions of course, but it's one point to keep in mind.)
losteric 9y ago
> a case today that forces Google to share all the data that it collects on searches would help break its monopoly. I'd rather see legislation against private entities aggregating that information. Honestly, Google's search has been getting worse for me as they optimize towards a more general audience.
bhauer 9y ago
> The claim that any user can switch to Bing by just typing in a different URL is ridiculous. I don't use Google much, so I am not sure what you mean by this. Can you elaborate on what makes switching to another search engine ridiculous? I might be unaware of what I am missing. Web searches are a pretty low-frequency, low-importance action for me. Thinking now of what I use search engines for, I suspect many of my searches are simply to confirm the domain name of a site I am vaguely familiar with, and any search engine can do that. For me, Amazon's dominion in online sales (something I use routinely) is more ominous than Google's dominion over search and advertising (something that I use so rarely). Google could disappear tomorrow and I would scarcely notice. That said, the reason I rarely use Google services is because I don't trust them and don't like their business model. So while I agree conceptually with the notion that we need to encourage alternatives, I disagree with the method to reach that end. I don't think exercise of government power is correct; I feel exercise of consumer choice is more appropriate. As a Netscape/Mozilla user in the late 90s, I felt the same way about Microsoft, and ultimately feel the government's suppression of Microsoft hurt the industry in several ways that are difficult to quantify.
- jordache 9y ago
  >I don't think exercise of government power is correct; I feel exercise of consumer choice is more appropriate. The fault with your idea is that consumer choice that organically influences the market will always lag greatly relative to immediate & absolute government regulation. Sometimes, the correction on a monopolistic with consumer choice alone can not be achieved.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    While that's true, search is nowhere near the point where it needs government action.
- InternetUser 9y ago
  > Web searches are a pretty low-frequency, low-importance action for me. Web searches are a very high-frequency, high-importance action for me--I do dozens of searches every day--and Google Search, whether for text, images, videos, or physical addresses, is so much more superior to any other search engine in thoroughness and organization, that there is, quite simply, no question about it.
ucaetano 9y ago
> I am surprised there has not been an antitrust case against Google and Facebook. Google is definitely abusing the monopoly position it has in search. The claim that any user can switch to Bing by just typing in a different URL is ridiculous. Can you point to a clear case of consumer harm? Antitrust doesn't (or, at least, shouldn't) exist to protect companies, but consumers. Ad prices have gone down, service prices have gone down, product prices have gone down.
- mercutio2 9y ago
  The executive branch has chosen to exercise its anti-trust powers against monopoly (which is often reduced to consumer harm) a bit over the last few decades. They’ve applied their powers barely at all to monopsony during the same time period, but I don’t think there’s nearly as broad agreement as you imply that those powers shouldn’t be applied to monopsony.
  - ucaetano 9y ago
    > The executive branch has chosen to exercise its anti-trust powers against monopoly (which is often reduced to consumer harm) Those two aren't necessarily related. From an economic (and therefore a regulator's) perspective, a monopoly means being able to extract monopolist prices from the market. That hasn't happened in the tech industry. The prices that matter (ad prices) have been going down dramatically over the years, with plenty of competition. The issue comes up every year at Google's and Facebook's earning calls. There is no economic monopoly. There could potentially be one in the layman's use of the word and in specific markets. This is similar to looking at Coke. There are markets (Brazil, for example) where Coke controls >95% of the cola market. Some would say it is a monopoly, but they are missing the point that the cola market doesn't exist in isolation, as it competes with the overall soda market, water, alcoholic beverages, and even the guy on the traffic light selling bags of orange.
briandear 9y ago
> a case today that forces Google to share all the data that it collects on searches would help break its monopoly. Not just no, but absolutely hell no. Currently, I can choose or not choose to agree to Google's policies or use or not use their services, but essentially open-sourcing their dataset where it can be used by literally anyone? I don't trust Google a lot, but I trust them far more than <insert random company I've never heard of.>
Balgair 9y ago
Here's a good book on the subject that recently came out: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01N4VV7B6/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B01N4VV7B6&linkCode=as2&tag=stucosuccess&linkId=FSXA3GZUT5SFDAZ4 https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01N4VV7B6/ref=as_li_tl?ie... And here is a good podcast between the book's author and a former lawyer: https://www.artofmanliness.com/2018/01/18/world-without-mind-franklin-foer-interview/ https://www.artofmanliness.com/2018/01/18/world-without-mind... The issue about monopolies goes back to Robert Bork: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork Also, try using DuckDuckGo or Startpage: https://www.startpage.com/eng/ https://www.startpage.com/eng/? https://duckduckgo.com/ https://duckduckgo.com/
dominotw 9y ago
> The claim that any user can switch to Bing by just typing in a different URL is ridiculous. I've had this exact argument here on HN in the past many times https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15045653 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15045653 > It takes me all of 10 seconds to type duckduckgo.com, and maybe 30 to switch default search engines for the browser. I personally think this monopoly is way more evil and insidious that ISP monopoly. It should bother us way more than net neutrality but for some reason it doesn't. I suspect because google and co are considered to be on "our side" and would be generally good for society.
laura2013 9y ago
I agree and that might soon change. Missouri’s attorney general has launched a probe into Google. Others might follow suit soon. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/conservative-backlash-a-missouri-republican-is-investigating-google/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/conservative-bac...
jacksmith21006 9y ago
Curious why it is ridiculous to sugest that you can just type bing.com instead of google.com? It is two characters less? Not saying it is or is not but more curious the rational for your thinking? It is not like Google blocks MS as far as I am aware from crawling their properties and YouTube search on Bing is excellent.

by smg 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Cthulhu_ 9y ago

> The claim that any user can switch to Bing by just typing in a different URL is ridiculous. It's not though; people have a choice in this case, not so when it comes to e.g. ISPs or cell phone operators.

Zhyl 9y ago
And more people seem [0] to be exercising that choice. [0]https://duckduckgo.com/traffic.html https://duckduckgo.com/traffic.html

wbl 9y ago

And that makes Google noticeably worse then it used to be for many queries.

aaron-lebo 9y ago
Right, so how much of a moat is that data really?

gaius 9y ago

a case today that forces Google to share all the data that it collects on searches would help break its monopoly. The only thing worse than Google having everyone’s search history is forcing them to reveal everyone’s search history. The data should be destroyed and new data not gathered. “You googled X on date D therefore we have concluded Y is a preexisting condition and your claim is denied”

nappy-doo 9y ago
Depending on the data, Google anonymizes the data in 30-180 days (most things are ≤34 days, and 180 is reserved for search).
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  A friendly reminder that there's no such thing as "anonymized data", there's only "anonymized until combined with other data sets".
  - ryandrake 9y ago
    A textbook example is the AOL search history release [1]. They went to the trouble of wiping user account information but left anonymous (but unique) per-user numeric identifiers. Oops, someone didn't think that one through. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_search_data_leak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_search_data_leak
    - Anon1096 9y ago
      How is that an example of one of the failures of anonimization of data? To me it just looks like AOL did a shitty job, not that the concept as a whole is a lost cause.
      - TeMPOraL 9y ago
        Most breaches happen because someone "did a shitty job". The truth is, you're doing a shitty job if you don't recognize anonymization for what it is - essentially trying to have a cake and eat it too. In practice, it has specific constraints that must be met, and I'd judge the difficulty of doing a good job here to be similar to rolling out your own crypto. That is, unless you're a good statistician, you're better off not sharing the data (or not having it in the first place) than releasing it "anonymized".

elgenie 9y ago

Saying that there haven't been any antitrust cases against Google and Facebook is simply inaccurate. Google got popped with a 2.4 billion euro antitrust fine for abusing their search monopoly just last summer (example source: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jun/27/google-braces-for-record-breaking-1bn-fine-from-eu https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jun/27/google-brac...).

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
Yes, but there have not been any in the US. (This is likely because of the amount of money Google 'invests' in politicians.) Note that the EU case is only the first of three EU antitrust cases against Google. They're also about to get hit with (rumored to be even larger) fines for abuses with Android and AdSense.
- ohtwenty 9y ago
  What about the other way around? Much of Google is US-gov't-funded

sillysaurus3 9y ago

This implies that a monopoly is bad. The government realizes how powerful Google's monopoly is. It's a monopoly on information. And that implies a monopoly on the rest of the world – at least, the part of it that uses Google. Any litigation would be spearheaded by the government. As long as Google plays ball with the backroom deals, they have nothing to worry about. If the NSA couldn't tap into the data behind their backs, they'll do it clandestinely but with Google's knowledge. This isn't as far fetched as it sounds. You're right that Google faces a monopoly breakup. But that gives the government all kinds of leverage into their treasure trove of human interaction.

jxdxbx 9y ago

Well, users can easily switch, to an extent (Google increasingly ties its services together, meaning you lose out if you use other Google products but not search). But, if you depend on incoming Google traffic, you can't "switch." It is this side of the equation where Google's search dominance is troubling. That, and ads.

wbl 9y ago
Ever pick up a tourist map? It's a pay to play list of recommendations.

mattlondon 9y ago

I switched to DuckDuckGo a while ago for all my personal devices/profiles and I have not looked back since. Quality of results is on a par to what I had using google.com. I still use gmail and youtube etc. Just change the settings in your browsers and you're done - takes about 11 seconds. The barrier to entry for someone like DDG is actually quite low I think - just have a look at how their traffic is growing (https://duckduckgo.com/traffic.html https://duckduckgo.com/traffic.html) and they're making a profit while doing it (http://fortune.com/2015/10/09/duckduckgo-profitable/ http://fortune.com/2015/10/09/duckduckgo-profitable/). DDG has proven that you can make a growing, profitable business in search that provides decent results without needing a million AI engineers mining the search data. I don't know what Bing search is like profitability-wise, but I am sure it is doing OK. I'd be keen to hear why you think that switching to another search engine is ridiculous? I cant think of any reasons why? I have no data, but I reckon that most users wouldn't even notice/realise if they were using another search engine (of course, the HN readership would notice immediately - we're not representative) , and I also reckon that of those that do about half of those would only realise because the look & feel is mildly different! :-) Based on my experience I really dont think they'd notice due to the quality of the results. But hey, I guess there are people who have niche queries they'll pull out to prove why DDG/Bing is inferior to Google. I guess some people dont remember what it was like before Google! The results from competitors are good IME.

arstin 9y ago
"I'd be keen to hear why you think that switching to another search engine is ridiculous?" I think you answered your own question: "I reckon that most users wouldn't even notice/realise if they were using another search engine". For example, the other night I wanted to watch a movie. I entered the title in the Chrome address bar. Google was automatically used of course (yes it's customizable through a few menus, but for most people that means it's auto Google). The first result had an option to rent the movie. I clicked "Rent". Google Play was used of course. And I gave Google $3. I don't personally mind this particular case, having long ago made the conscious choice to use Google Play over Apple or Amazon...or...ummm...for renting movies (mostly early Chromecast support). But it's a simple illustration of how Google isn't just a "search engine" that pulls up information you query when you want to surf the information superhighway. It's the automatic background interface for a great number of activities we do in our life. The fact most people probably don't even realize that is exactly one problem. (And this has solutions of course, but it's one point to keep in mind.)

losteric 9y ago

> a case today that forces Google to share all the data that it collects on searches would help break its monopoly. I'd rather see legislation against private entities aggregating that information. Honestly, Google's search has been getting worse for me as they optimize towards a more general audience.

bhauer 9y ago

> The claim that any user can switch to Bing by just typing in a different URL is ridiculous. I don't use Google much, so I am not sure what you mean by this. Can you elaborate on what makes switching to another search engine ridiculous? I might be unaware of what I am missing. Web searches are a pretty low-frequency, low-importance action for me. Thinking now of what I use search engines for, I suspect many of my searches are simply to confirm the domain name of a site I am vaguely familiar with, and any search engine can do that. For me, Amazon's dominion in online sales (something I use routinely) is more ominous than Google's dominion over search and advertising (something that I use so rarely). Google could disappear tomorrow and I would scarcely notice. That said, the reason I rarely use Google services is because I don't trust them and don't like their business model. So while I agree conceptually with the notion that we need to encourage alternatives, I disagree with the method to reach that end. I don't think exercise of government power is correct; I feel exercise of consumer choice is more appropriate. As a Netscape/Mozilla user in the late 90s, I felt the same way about Microsoft, and ultimately feel the government's suppression of Microsoft hurt the industry in several ways that are difficult to quantify.

jordache 9y ago
>I don't think exercise of government power is correct; I feel exercise of consumer choice is more appropriate. The fault with your idea is that consumer choice that organically influences the market will always lag greatly relative to immediate & absolute government regulation. Sometimes, the correction on a monopolistic with consumer choice alone can not be achieved.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  While that's true, search is nowhere near the point where it needs government action.
InternetUser 9y ago
> Web searches are a pretty low-frequency, low-importance action for me. Web searches are a very high-frequency, high-importance action for me--I do dozens of searches every day--and Google Search, whether for text, images, videos, or physical addresses, is so much more superior to any other search engine in thoroughness and organization, that there is, quite simply, no question about it.

ucaetano 9y ago

> I am surprised there has not been an antitrust case against Google and Facebook. Google is definitely abusing the monopoly position it has in search. The claim that any user can switch to Bing by just typing in a different URL is ridiculous. Can you point to a clear case of consumer harm? Antitrust doesn't (or, at least, shouldn't) exist to protect companies, but consumers. Ad prices have gone down, service prices have gone down, product prices have gone down.

mercutio2 9y ago
The executive branch has chosen to exercise its anti-trust powers against monopoly (which is often reduced to consumer harm) a bit over the last few decades. They’ve applied their powers barely at all to monopsony during the same time period, but I don’t think there’s nearly as broad agreement as you imply that those powers shouldn’t be applied to monopsony.
- ucaetano 9y ago
  > The executive branch has chosen to exercise its anti-trust powers against monopoly (which is often reduced to consumer harm) Those two aren't necessarily related. From an economic (and therefore a regulator's) perspective, a monopoly means being able to extract monopolist prices from the market. That hasn't happened in the tech industry. The prices that matter (ad prices) have been going down dramatically over the years, with plenty of competition. The issue comes up every year at Google's and Facebook's earning calls. There is no economic monopoly. There could potentially be one in the layman's use of the word and in specific markets. This is similar to looking at Coke. There are markets (Brazil, for example) where Coke controls >95% of the cola market. Some would say it is a monopoly, but they are missing the point that the cola market doesn't exist in isolation, as it competes with the overall soda market, water, alcoholic beverages, and even the guy on the traffic light selling bags of orange.

briandear 9y ago

> a case today that forces Google to share all the data that it collects on searches would help break its monopoly. Not just no, but absolutely hell no. Currently, I can choose or not choose to agree to Google's policies or use or not use their services, but essentially open-sourcing their dataset where it can be used by literally anyone? I don't trust Google a lot, but I trust them far more than <insert random company I've never heard of.>

Balgair 9y ago

Here's a good book on the subject that recently came out: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01N4VV7B6/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B01N4VV7B6&linkCode=as2&tag=stucosuccess&linkId=FSXA3GZUT5SFDAZ4 https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01N4VV7B6/ref=as_li_tl?ie... And here is a good podcast between the book's author and a former lawyer: https://www.artofmanliness.com/2018/01/18/world-without-mind-franklin-foer-interview/ https://www.artofmanliness.com/2018/01/18/world-without-mind... The issue about monopolies goes back to Robert Bork: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork Also, try using DuckDuckGo or Startpage: https://www.startpage.com/eng/ https://www.startpage.com/eng/? https://duckduckgo.com/ https://duckduckgo.com/

dominotw 9y ago

> The claim that any user can switch to Bing by just typing in a different URL is ridiculous. I've had this exact argument here on HN in the past many times https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15045653 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15045653 > It takes me all of 10 seconds to type duckduckgo.com, and maybe 30 to switch default search engines for the browser. I personally think this monopoly is way more evil and insidious that ISP monopoly. It should bother us way more than net neutrality but for some reason it doesn't. I suspect because google and co are considered to be on "our side" and would be generally good for society.

laura2013 9y ago

I agree and that might soon change. Missouri’s attorney general has launched a probe into Google. Others might follow suit soon. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/conservative-backlash-a-missouri-republican-is-investigating-google/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/conservative-bac...

jacksmith21006 9y ago

Curious why it is ridiculous to sugest that you can just type bing.com instead of google.com? It is two characters less? Not saying it is or is not but more curious the rational for your thinking? It is not like Google blocks MS as far as I am aware from crawling their properties and YouTube search on Bing is excellent.