7 ms·

So we have a browser with nearly 70% market share, made by an advertising company that's arguably the most powerful business on the internet, interfering with a

So we have a browser with nearly 70% market share, made by an advertising company that's arguably the most powerful business on the internet, interfering with ad blocking. And of course there is no regulatory body that is able or willing to step in. Great.

pnw_hazor 8y ago
"President Donald Trump’s nominee for U.S. attorney general, William Barr, told lawmakers on Tuesday that he would focus attention on the “huge behemoths” in Silicon Valley at the center of a debate over antitrust enforcement. " https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-barr-antitrust/trump-ag-pick-concerned-by-silicon-valley-behemoths-idUSKCN1P92FU https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-barr-antitrust/... We can only hope.
- Klonoar 8y ago
  Barr is notably for a surveillance state, more or less. Relying on a pick of Trump's to solve anything in the Valley is a recipe for disaster.
  - shard972 8y ago
    Do you know of a WH official that was ever against the surveillance state? And why does trump picking him make him automatically a disaster? I feel like this is being completely dismissive of any kind of progress that could be made because orange man is bad.
    - metalliqaz 8y ago
      A fish rots from the head down, and Trump's avowed preference would be to attack companies for spite if they haven't been nice to him personally. Those kind of regulations are probably not productive.
    - abapologist 8y ago
      I think the heuristic is whether someone accepts a nomination from trump.
    - sodosopa 8y ago
      > And why does trump picking him make him automatically a disaster? Because President Trump doesn't have a great record in picking nor retaining people. https://www.brookings.edu/research/tracking-turnover-in-the-trump-administration/ https://www.brookings.edu/research/tracking-turnover-in-the-...
      - Klonoar 8y ago
        Pretty much this, yeah. Just because we're on HN doesn't mean reality (GOP rot) goes out the window.
- BLKNSLVR 8y ago
  Beware the hidden intentions of all sides. Google (and the Silicon Valley behemoths): Currently know a lot of personal information about the citizenry The US Government: Wants to know this information Neither are necessarily deserving of or entitled to this information, so we shouldn't be cheering for either side. Antitrust is less the issue than personal information / privacy / data tracking regulation. Antitrust enforcement is treating the symptoms, not the cause.
  - the-pigeon 8y ago
    Is there any reason to think the NSA doesn't have access to most of what US corporations have? Either legally through classified programs or illegally through various methods. It's been confirmed they've had lots of forms of access many times in the past. Seems naive to believe anything would be different today.
    - BLKNSLVR 8y ago
      You raise a very good point, and I can't even start to guess at the answer or implications. I think any data the NSA has would be stringently guarded and only used for high-profile / high-impact cases. If the NSA was constantly feeding data to other agencies about trivialities, then it would raise red flags about where "all this incriminating evidence" came from. Cases involving StingRay interceptions have been dropped so as to protect the details of such interceptions. There's also the relationship between the agency and the Government to consider. The CIA don't seem to get along very well with various members of the US Government, and with "good" members such as Ron Wyden, if the NSA was feeding ill-gotten data to the US Govt, then someone like him would probably raise some kind of stink. This doesn't answer the fundamental question of whether the NSA has this data, it's more about the potential mitigation of the likelihood of the data being actually used against someone. Much like we don't know where the line is on the potential for Huawei kit to be a threat to national security. Something. Not nothing. Edited to add: There's also the very likely situation where Government policy / regulation is put in place to cover all parties, and the NSA ignores this anyway because they're above the law. Everyone else must play by the rules, the US Govt looks to be doing the right thing. (this isn't a bitter statement, merely that I think this is how things actually work, whether for the US or any other country; realpolitik)
- lvs 8y ago
  This is just a dog whistle for the political claim that search results, curated content, or algorithmic feeds are "biased" against a particular viewpoint of the world that they would prefer. Their intent is to use enforcement and investigative powers to make that case publicly and intimidate. The worst case, in their view, is to raise uncertainty about information sources; or, in the best case, to coerce more favorable rankings for their favored information sources. It's a furtherance of our state of domestic information warfare, while they remain in power.
masonic 8y ago
there is no regulatory body that is able or willing to step in What regulatory bodies have legal standing to step in?
- ickwabe 8y ago
  The Federal Trade Commision has that legal standing even if they chose not to exercise it.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- LamaOfRuin 8y ago
  I'd say at least several hundred worldwide (because many of them can simply claim jurisdiction over whatever they want that enters the lives of their citizens). There are probably about a dozen that have the teeth to actually change Google's behaviour if they chose to.
AnaniasAnanas 8y ago
Why should a regulatory body step in? People were saying for years about how evil Google is, along with how limited and how much of a spyware Chrome is. There are alternatives that people can switch to, if they decide to keep using Chrome they should just suffer the consequences.
- darkpuma 8y ago
  It's tempting to fall into the trap of feeling smug that you've made the right decision so no action should be taken against a company abusing their market position in a manner that's harmful to the public. Try to resist that temptation, like I have. I too have been using Firefox this entire time, but I don't let that tempt me into apathy towards the state of the industry. You may as well question the purpose of the FDA regulating slaughterhouses since vegetarians have been found a way to avoid doing business with them. That's a nonsense position. A vegetarian should demand that the FDA regulate the meat industry, and a firefox user should demand regulation for corporations they've avoided.
  - dominotw 8y ago
    > harmful to the public. How do you measure this? Does the public include content creators who rely on ads for their livelihood?
    - ohithereyou 8y ago
      Won't someone think of the buggy-whip makers!
    - darkpuma 8y ago
      Any abuse of a monopoly is harmful to the public. Correct me if I'm misrepresenting your position, but I vaguely recall a discussion some time ago in which you compared adblocking to theft. If I'm remembering that correctly, you and I have no common ground upon which to have a civil discussion.
      - 8y ago
dominotw 8y ago
> And of course there is no regulatory body that is able or willing to step in. On basis of what exactly? What is google doing wrong? I am curious to hear. Don't downvote me.
- tyingq 8y ago
  I suspect a reply to your comment isn't going to change your stance on whether Google is dancing around in the anti-trust/monopoly area. Maybe you would concede that some reasonable people think they have in the past? Like FTC investigators (albeit overruled by their bosses): http://graphics.wsj.com/google-ftc-report/ http://graphics.wsj.com/google-ftc-report/ Or Eric Schmidt: https://www.businessinsider.com/is-google-a-monopoly-were-in-that-area-admits-schmidt-2011-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/is-google-a-monopoly-were-in...
  - dominotw 8y ago
    see this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15045653 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15045653 Winning argument was > It takes me all of 10 seconds to type duckduckgo.com, and maybe 30 to switch default search engines for the browser. [1][2] But an equivalent, i can just download FF in 10 seconds is not acceptable in this context. why? Infact, Google browser is way less dominant that the search engine. > I suspect a reply to your comment isn't going to change your stance on whether Google is dancing around in the anti-trust/monopoly area. Why is that? Sounds a bit patronising. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15046158 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15046158 2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15046382 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15046382
    - tyingq 8y ago
      >Why is that? Sounds a bit patronising It wasn't meant to be patronizing. People's views on anti-trust law vary enough that I don't expect a debate to settle things.
      - dominotw 8y ago
kauffj 8y ago
Indeed it is! We have a wonderful mechanism that handles this situation: a free market. We've already seen far greater market share from a browser. That browser lost it's market share when it stopped serving consumers. It lost it so thoroughly that decades and billions later it still can't recoup it. Why would you want the government to hurt Firefox and the other competitors who would be happy to compete with Google on this front?
- 50656E6973 8y ago
  Its not a free market
  - dymk 8y ago
    Browser choice is most certainly a free market. Microsoft, Mozilla, and Apple all develop their own, and their browsers are not beholden to the same pressures as Google (i.e. to not block ads).
    - bk_avalara 8y ago
      Except for the Microsoft part, yes: https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2018/12/06/microsoft-edge-making-the-web-better-through-more-open-source-collaboration/ https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2018/12/06/micro...
  - Bizarro 8y ago
    It's not a free market, so let's make it less of a free market by getting the government involved. That's the plan, right?
    - Zarath 8y ago
      You, like so many others, are conflating "ideal" market and "free" market. Free markets do not always behave ideally, and ideal markets is really what we should be aiming for.
    - 50656E6973 8y ago
Mikeb85 8y ago
Why should Google, an ad company, not interfere with an ad blocker? No one has to use Chrome and Google doesn't have to allow ad blockers.
- jszymborski 8y ago
  You do start to wade into anti-trust areas when you start down this track, however...
- treypitt 8y ago
  ruthless pursuit of profit risks alienation of its customers? good point though. I'd be shocked if >10% of Chrome users use uBlock Origin, in which case it's probably worth it (for their shareholders). Remember that advertisers are Google's customers, not us
  - jompe 8y ago
    > Remember that advertisers are Google's customers, not us Exactly, we are the product they are selling
darawk 8y ago
Why is this a problem? There are other browsers you can use. Google has a right to do what it likes with theirs. Just switch if you don't like it.
briandear 8y ago
Why does a regulatory agency need to be involved? Use Firefox, use Safari, use whatever you want. Nobody forces you or anyone to use Chrome.
- LamaOfRuin 8y ago
  Because that's what they're for. They take actions on behalf of society, because direct action by the masses on every single issue is extraordinarily inefficient.

pnw_hazor 8y ago

"President Donald Trump’s nominee for U.S. attorney general, William Barr, told lawmakers on Tuesday that he would focus attention on the “huge behemoths” in Silicon Valley at the center of a debate over antitrust enforcement. " https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-barr-antitrust/trump-ag-pick-concerned-by-silicon-valley-behemoths-idUSKCN1P92FU https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-barr-antitrust/... We can only hope.

Klonoar 8y ago
Barr is notably for a surveillance state, more or less. Relying on a pick of Trump's to solve anything in the Valley is a recipe for disaster.
- shard972 8y ago
  Do you know of a WH official that was ever against the surveillance state? And why does trump picking him make him automatically a disaster? I feel like this is being completely dismissive of any kind of progress that could be made because orange man is bad.
  - metalliqaz 8y ago
    A fish rots from the head down, and Trump's avowed preference would be to attack companies for spite if they haven't been nice to him personally. Those kind of regulations are probably not productive.
  - abapologist 8y ago
    I think the heuristic is whether someone accepts a nomination from trump.
  - sodosopa 8y ago
    > And why does trump picking him make him automatically a disaster? Because President Trump doesn't have a great record in picking nor retaining people. https://www.brookings.edu/research/tracking-turnover-in-the-trump-administration/ https://www.brookings.edu/research/tracking-turnover-in-the-...
    - Klonoar 8y ago
      Pretty much this, yeah. Just because we're on HN doesn't mean reality (GOP rot) goes out the window.
BLKNSLVR 8y ago
Beware the hidden intentions of all sides. Google (and the Silicon Valley behemoths): Currently know a lot of personal information about the citizenry The US Government: Wants to know this information Neither are necessarily deserving of or entitled to this information, so we shouldn't be cheering for either side. Antitrust is less the issue than personal information / privacy / data tracking regulation. Antitrust enforcement is treating the symptoms, not the cause.
- the-pigeon 8y ago
  Is there any reason to think the NSA doesn't have access to most of what US corporations have? Either legally through classified programs or illegally through various methods. It's been confirmed they've had lots of forms of access many times in the past. Seems naive to believe anything would be different today.
  - BLKNSLVR 8y ago
    You raise a very good point, and I can't even start to guess at the answer or implications. I think any data the NSA has would be stringently guarded and only used for high-profile / high-impact cases. If the NSA was constantly feeding data to other agencies about trivialities, then it would raise red flags about where "all this incriminating evidence" came from. Cases involving StingRay interceptions have been dropped so as to protect the details of such interceptions. There's also the relationship between the agency and the Government to consider. The CIA don't seem to get along very well with various members of the US Government, and with "good" members such as Ron Wyden, if the NSA was feeding ill-gotten data to the US Govt, then someone like him would probably raise some kind of stink. This doesn't answer the fundamental question of whether the NSA has this data, it's more about the potential mitigation of the likelihood of the data being actually used against someone. Much like we don't know where the line is on the potential for Huawei kit to be a threat to national security. Something. Not nothing. Edited to add: There's also the very likely situation where Government policy / regulation is put in place to cover all parties, and the NSA ignores this anyway because they're above the law. Everyone else must play by the rules, the US Govt looks to be doing the right thing. (this isn't a bitter statement, merely that I think this is how things actually work, whether for the US or any other country; realpolitik)
lvs 8y ago
This is just a dog whistle for the political claim that search results, curated content, or algorithmic feeds are "biased" against a particular viewpoint of the world that they would prefer. Their intent is to use enforcement and investigative powers to make that case publicly and intimidate. The worst case, in their view, is to raise uncertainty about information sources; or, in the best case, to coerce more favorable rankings for their favored information sources. It's a furtherance of our state of domestic information warfare, while they remain in power.

masonic 8y ago

there is no regulatory body that is able or willing to step in What regulatory bodies have legal standing to step in?

ickwabe 8y ago
The Federal Trade Commision has that legal standing even if they chose not to exercise it.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
LamaOfRuin 8y ago
I'd say at least several hundred worldwide (because many of them can simply claim jurisdiction over whatever they want that enters the lives of their citizens). There are probably about a dozen that have the teeth to actually change Google's behaviour if they chose to.

AnaniasAnanas 8y ago

Why should a regulatory body step in? People were saying for years about how evil Google is, along with how limited and how much of a spyware Chrome is. There are alternatives that people can switch to, if they decide to keep using Chrome they should just suffer the consequences.

darkpuma 8y ago
It's tempting to fall into the trap of feeling smug that you've made the right decision so no action should be taken against a company abusing their market position in a manner that's harmful to the public. Try to resist that temptation, like I have. I too have been using Firefox this entire time, but I don't let that tempt me into apathy towards the state of the industry. You may as well question the purpose of the FDA regulating slaughterhouses since vegetarians have been found a way to avoid doing business with them. That's a nonsense position. A vegetarian should demand that the FDA regulate the meat industry, and a firefox user should demand regulation for corporations they've avoided.
- dominotw 8y ago
  > harmful to the public. How do you measure this? Does the public include content creators who rely on ads for their livelihood?
  - ohithereyou 8y ago
    Won't someone think of the buggy-whip makers!
  - darkpuma 8y ago
    Any abuse of a monopoly is harmful to the public. Correct me if I'm misrepresenting your position, but I vaguely recall a discussion some time ago in which you compared adblocking to theft. If I'm remembering that correctly, you and I have no common ground upon which to have a civil discussion.
    - 8y ago

dominotw 8y ago

> And of course there is no regulatory body that is able or willing to step in. On basis of what exactly? What is google doing wrong? I am curious to hear. Don't downvote me.

tyingq 8y ago
I suspect a reply to your comment isn't going to change your stance on whether Google is dancing around in the anti-trust/monopoly area. Maybe you would concede that some reasonable people think they have in the past? Like FTC investigators (albeit overruled by their bosses): http://graphics.wsj.com/google-ftc-report/ http://graphics.wsj.com/google-ftc-report/ Or Eric Schmidt: https://www.businessinsider.com/is-google-a-monopoly-were-in-that-area-admits-schmidt-2011-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/is-google-a-monopoly-were-in...
- dominotw 8y ago
  see this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15045653 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15045653 Winning argument was > It takes me all of 10 seconds to type duckduckgo.com, and maybe 30 to switch default search engines for the browser. [1][2] But an equivalent, i can just download FF in 10 seconds is not acceptable in this context. why? Infact, Google browser is way less dominant that the search engine. > I suspect a reply to your comment isn't going to change your stance on whether Google is dancing around in the anti-trust/monopoly area. Why is that? Sounds a bit patronising. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15046158 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15046158 2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15046382 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15046382
  - tyingq 8y ago
    >Why is that? Sounds a bit patronising It wasn't meant to be patronizing. People's views on anti-trust law vary enough that I don't expect a debate to settle things.
    - dominotw 8y ago

kauffj 8y ago

Indeed it is! We have a wonderful mechanism that handles this situation: a free market. We've already seen far greater market share from a browser. That browser lost it's market share when it stopped serving consumers. It lost it so thoroughly that decades and billions later it still can't recoup it. Why would you want the government to hurt Firefox and the other competitors who would be happy to compete with Google on this front?

50656E6973 8y ago
Its not a free market
- dymk 8y ago
  Browser choice is most certainly a free market. Microsoft, Mozilla, and Apple all develop their own, and their browsers are not beholden to the same pressures as Google (i.e. to not block ads).
  - bk_avalara 8y ago
    Except for the Microsoft part, yes: https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2018/12/06/microsoft-edge-making-the-web-better-through-more-open-source-collaboration/ https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2018/12/06/micro...
- Bizarro 8y ago
  It's not a free market, so let's make it less of a free market by getting the government involved. That's the plan, right?
  - Zarath 8y ago
    You, like so many others, are conflating "ideal" market and "free" market. Free markets do not always behave ideally, and ideal markets is really what we should be aiming for.
  - 50656E6973 8y ago

Mikeb85 8y ago

Why should Google, an ad company, not interfere with an ad blocker? No one has to use Chrome and Google doesn't have to allow ad blockers.

jszymborski 8y ago
You do start to wade into anti-trust areas when you start down this track, however...
treypitt 8y ago
ruthless pursuit of profit risks alienation of its customers? good point though. I'd be shocked if >10% of Chrome users use uBlock Origin, in which case it's probably worth it (for their shareholders). Remember that advertisers are Google's customers, not us
- jompe 8y ago
  > Remember that advertisers are Google's customers, not us Exactly, we are the product they are selling

darawk 8y ago

Why is this a problem? There are other browsers you can use. Google has a right to do what it likes with theirs. Just switch if you don't like it.

briandear 8y ago

Why does a regulatory agency need to be involved? Use Firefox, use Safari, use whatever you want. Nobody forces you or anyone to use Chrome.

LamaOfRuin 8y ago
Because that's what they're for. They take actions on behalf of society, because direct action by the masses on every single issue is extraordinarily inefficient.