6 ms·

People don't seem to understand how this stuff works in the US, Google has full editorial control over their search results protected by the first amendment and

People don't seem to understand how this stuff works in the US, Google has full editorial control over their search results protected by the first amendment and that right was affirmed in court time and time again: https://searchengineland.com/another-court-affirms-googles-first-amendment-control-search-results-209034 https://searchengineland.com/another-court-affirms-googles-f... If you don't like their free no lock in service go elsewhere, and that's why there is no sherman act case here, which is why if the DOJ actually does anything here it would be a waste of time and resources.

glbrew 7y ago
I'm not a lawyer but the first amendment argument is a separate concern than antitrust violations. You can exercise your first amendment rights while still breaching antitrust law.
- fyoving 7y ago
  Depends on what's being investigated here, if the government would actually want to compel Google to alter their search results then it's a first amendment case.
  - tantalor 7y ago
    > Take a look at google AMP The argument here is its unfair to bias ranking towards a preferred format. In this case, something about excluding competitors, except AMP is completely open-source[1] so...? The counterargument is yes you can, because it's your pamphlet/newspaper/website and you're the editor, not the government. [1] https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml
    - bduerst 7y ago
      Yeah, if AMP is antitrust then so is Facebook's Open Graph. Despite the hate for both on HN, neither format is targeting competitors or hurting consumers in this case.
      - _hl_ 7y ago
        I think the antitrust argument against AMP is a bit more subtle. The argument seems to be that Google is abusing it's market dominance to push sites into using AMP. This in turn prevents them from using third party trackers, while the pages will be served via Google caches when accessed from Google search. Hence Google gets to track the visitor, while third party tracking from other providers is prevented. I.e. Google is abusing it's power to thwart competition in the analytics and ad-tech business. Of course as a consumer, I don't really care whether it's some random company or Google who gets to violate my privacy, and I especially couldn't care less about lack of innovation in the privacy violation business, so I think the antitrust angle here is pretty slim.
        bduerst 7y ago
        Maybe - is Amp rendering blocking third party tracking from GTM tags?
        themacguffinman 7y ago
        Third party trackers are not prevented.
        _hl_ 7y ago
        You can use Google Analytics through the <amp-analytics> element [1], but since AMP prevents third-party scripts that were not approved by Google, I'm not sure how you would include other trackers in an AMP site. [1] https://developers.google.com/analytics/devguides/collection/amp-analytics/ https://developers.google.com/analytics/devguides/collection...
        themacguffinman 7y ago
        You can easily use other analytics vendors https://amp.dev/documentation/guides-and-tutorials/optimize-measure/configure-analytics/?referrer=ampproject.org https://amp.dev/documentation/guides-and-tutorials/optimize-...
- eftychis 7y ago
  Yes, the first amendment here does not seem to apply, except if the poster above, has something else in mind? That DOJ even considers going to court, hints that they have a strong case -- given how conservative the DOJ is to betting on a court case and not settling.
  - fyoving 7y ago
    No one is reporting that the DOJ is considering going to court nor that they have any "case" let alone a "strong" one if the WSJ reports are to be believed it's very preliminary stuff.
    - eftychis 7y ago
      Thank you for the correction!
- tantalor 7y ago
  > You can exercise your first amendment rights while still breaching antitrust law. Go on... example?
  - glbrew 7y ago
    Here is the first example I came across: https://www.rbr.com/six-broadcast-tv-groups-settle-doj-antitrust-case/ https://www.rbr.com/six-broadcast-tv-groups-settle-doj-antit... No one is saying these broadcast groups don't have 1st amendment rights, just that they were going about it in an anti-competitive way.
    - fyoving 7y ago
      That's a price fixing/cartel case not a first amendment one.
      - reallydude 7y ago
        Isn't that the point? What you prosecute is not related the first amendment, despite the actions being protected by it.
        bduerst 7y ago
        This case is clearly price fixing, not first amendment. The radio stations weren't broadcasting their prices to consumers, but secretly communicating with competitors to form a cartel, which is forbidden. Doesn't matter if they were radio stations or grocery stores.
    - tantalor 7y ago
      The fact that the companies in that suit were radio stations seems irrelevant to the facts of the case; they could have been hamburger restaurants and the legal question would not change.
SomeOldThrow 7y ago
I’m fairly sure strong arming your clients does fall under anti trust, regardless of how hostile google is to its ad targets.
- tantalor 7y ago
  > strong arming your clients You're describing any business, that's how business works.
  - Sabinus 7y ago
    ? I though a business arrangement was meant to be optional and mutually beneficial.
- bjt 7y ago
  Playing hardball is itself not an antitrust violation. Doing it to maintain monopoly power is. (Under section 2 of the Sherman Act.)
  - SomeOldThrow 7y ago
    Google is not a monopoly in terms of consumer choice (we can choose any one of mostly identical search engines), but it is in terms of market share ala internet explorer. It is in a perfect situation to leverage this to force arbitrary policies that mostly benefit it, like amp.
    - prepend 7y ago
      Google has monopoly power [0] even though consumers can choose to use other search providers. They just don’t. [0] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
HillaryBriss 7y ago
Harvard Law professor Elizabeth Warren (not exactly a conservative Trump supporter) seems to think that antitrust regulators do indeed have a legitimate role to play: Warren would appoint regulators who would reverse some of the biggest tech mergers that have taken place in recent years. That would mean the reversal of Amazon’s acquisition of Whole Foods and Zappos, Facebook’s acquisition of WhatsApp and Instagram, and Google’s acquisition of Waze, Nest, and DoubleClick. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/8/18256192/elizabeth-warren-medium-google-amazon-facebook https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/8/18256192/el...
- SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
  Downvotes be damned, but I honestly can’t tell if this is satire.
  - HillaryBriss 7y ago
    lol. well, truthfully, i was trying to make a serious statement. i figured mentioning a proponent of big tech breakup with valid legal credentials and a different political axe to grind might be useful evidence in deciding whether the antitrust case had any merit. (i believe the Vox article is trying to be serious as well.)
netwanderer3 7y ago
Indeed. Many people fail to grasp that in the grand scheme of things, this is unlikely to change anything. Google has always been at the center of the tech industry. Some of its services are not only important to the public and vital for the U.S. economy, but also very critical to national security as well. Rest assured that efforts will be spent to ensure Google will continue to remain at this position in the foreseeable future. Actions like these are more likely to serve as a way to calm down the public aka damage control.
- SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
  >Google has always been at the center of the tech industry. Are you showing your age?
  - netwanderer3 7y ago
    You must be fun at parties.
SomeOldThrow 7y ago
This is not a first amendment issue, this is leveraging a monopolistic market share to force technologies like amp on customers.
mbell 7y ago
I think this is a really simplistic view of how the first amendment applies to businesses. I think the key here is the definition of a 'public space' as what freedoms a business has changes when they provide a public space. It's a bit unclear what defines a public space in the digital world, I'd argue that physical presence isn't a requirement and the key aspects are accessibility and communication. i.e. If anyone can go there, and anyone can communicate there, it's a public space. _If_ this is true, then many sites are public spaces, certainly social media. Search is a bit more unclear since the communication aspect is questionable.
jsilence 7y ago
Yeah, this is simply capitalism. Remove the cause and not the symptoms!

glbrew 7y ago

I'm not a lawyer but the first amendment argument is a separate concern than antitrust violations. You can exercise your first amendment rights while still breaching antitrust law.

fyoving 7y ago
Depends on what's being investigated here, if the government would actually want to compel Google to alter their search results then it's a first amendment case.
- tantalor 7y ago
  > Take a look at google AMP The argument here is its unfair to bias ranking towards a preferred format. In this case, something about excluding competitors, except AMP is completely open-source[1] so...? The counterargument is yes you can, because it's your pamphlet/newspaper/website and you're the editor, not the government. [1] https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml
  - bduerst 7y ago
    Yeah, if AMP is antitrust then so is Facebook's Open Graph. Despite the hate for both on HN, neither format is targeting competitors or hurting consumers in this case.
    - _hl_ 7y ago
      I think the antitrust argument against AMP is a bit more subtle. The argument seems to be that Google is abusing it's market dominance to push sites into using AMP. This in turn prevents them from using third party trackers, while the pages will be served via Google caches when accessed from Google search. Hence Google gets to track the visitor, while third party tracking from other providers is prevented. I.e. Google is abusing it's power to thwart competition in the analytics and ad-tech business. Of course as a consumer, I don't really care whether it's some random company or Google who gets to violate my privacy, and I especially couldn't care less about lack of innovation in the privacy violation business, so I think the antitrust angle here is pretty slim.
      - bduerst 7y ago
        Maybe - is Amp rendering blocking third party tracking from GTM tags?
      - themacguffinman 7y ago
        Third party trackers are not prevented.
        _hl_ 7y ago
        You can use Google Analytics through the <amp-analytics> element [1], but since AMP prevents third-party scripts that were not approved by Google, I'm not sure how you would include other trackers in an AMP site. [1] https://developers.google.com/analytics/devguides/collection/amp-analytics/ https://developers.google.com/analytics/devguides/collection...
        themacguffinman 7y ago
        You can easily use other analytics vendors https://amp.dev/documentation/guides-and-tutorials/optimize-measure/configure-analytics/?referrer=ampproject.org https://amp.dev/documentation/guides-and-tutorials/optimize-...
eftychis 7y ago
Yes, the first amendment here does not seem to apply, except if the poster above, has something else in mind? That DOJ even considers going to court, hints that they have a strong case -- given how conservative the DOJ is to betting on a court case and not settling.
- fyoving 7y ago
  No one is reporting that the DOJ is considering going to court nor that they have any "case" let alone a "strong" one if the WSJ reports are to be believed it's very preliminary stuff.
  - eftychis 7y ago
    Thank you for the correction!
tantalor 7y ago
> You can exercise your first amendment rights while still breaching antitrust law. Go on... example?
- glbrew 7y ago
  Here is the first example I came across: https://www.rbr.com/six-broadcast-tv-groups-settle-doj-antitrust-case/ https://www.rbr.com/six-broadcast-tv-groups-settle-doj-antit... No one is saying these broadcast groups don't have 1st amendment rights, just that they were going about it in an anti-competitive way.
  - fyoving 7y ago
    That's a price fixing/cartel case not a first amendment one.
    - reallydude 7y ago
      Isn't that the point? What you prosecute is not related the first amendment, despite the actions being protected by it.
      - bduerst 7y ago
        This case is clearly price fixing, not first amendment. The radio stations weren't broadcasting their prices to consumers, but secretly communicating with competitors to form a cartel, which is forbidden. Doesn't matter if they were radio stations or grocery stores.
  - tantalor 7y ago
    The fact that the companies in that suit were radio stations seems irrelevant to the facts of the case; they could have been hamburger restaurants and the legal question would not change.

SomeOldThrow 7y ago

I’m fairly sure strong arming your clients does fall under anti trust, regardless of how hostile google is to its ad targets.

tantalor 7y ago
> strong arming your clients You're describing any business, that's how business works.
- Sabinus 7y ago
  ? I though a business arrangement was meant to be optional and mutually beneficial.
bjt 7y ago
Playing hardball is itself not an antitrust violation. Doing it to maintain monopoly power is. (Under section 2 of the Sherman Act.)
- SomeOldThrow 7y ago
  Google is not a monopoly in terms of consumer choice (we can choose any one of mostly identical search engines), but it is in terms of market share ala internet explorer. It is in a perfect situation to leverage this to force arbitrary policies that mostly benefit it, like amp.
  - prepend 7y ago
    Google has monopoly power [0] even though consumers can choose to use other search providers. They just don’t. [0] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]

HillaryBriss 7y ago

Harvard Law professor Elizabeth Warren (not exactly a conservative Trump supporter) seems to think that antitrust regulators do indeed have a legitimate role to play: Warren would appoint regulators who would reverse some of the biggest tech mergers that have taken place in recent years. That would mean the reversal of Amazon’s acquisition of Whole Foods and Zappos, Facebook’s acquisition of WhatsApp and Instagram, and Google’s acquisition of Waze, Nest, and DoubleClick. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/8/18256192/elizabeth-warren-medium-google-amazon-facebook https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/8/18256192/el...

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
Downvotes be damned, but I honestly can’t tell if this is satire.
- HillaryBriss 7y ago
  lol. well, truthfully, i was trying to make a serious statement. i figured mentioning a proponent of big tech breakup with valid legal credentials and a different political axe to grind might be useful evidence in deciding whether the antitrust case had any merit. (i believe the Vox article is trying to be serious as well.)

netwanderer3 7y ago

Indeed. Many people fail to grasp that in the grand scheme of things, this is unlikely to change anything. Google has always been at the center of the tech industry. Some of its services are not only important to the public and vital for the U.S. economy, but also very critical to national security as well. Rest assured that efforts will be spent to ensure Google will continue to remain at this position in the foreseeable future. Actions like these are more likely to serve as a way to calm down the public aka damage control.

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
>Google has always been at the center of the tech industry. Are you showing your age?
- netwanderer3 7y ago
  You must be fun at parties.

SomeOldThrow 7y ago

This is not a first amendment issue, this is leveraging a monopolistic market share to force technologies like amp on customers.

mbell 7y ago

I think this is a really simplistic view of how the first amendment applies to businesses. I think the key here is the definition of a 'public space' as what freedoms a business has changes when they provide a public space. It's a bit unclear what defines a public space in the digital world, I'd argue that physical presence isn't a requirement and the key aspects are accessibility and communication. i.e. If anyone can go there, and anyone can communicate there, it's a public space. _If_ this is true, then many sites are public spaces, certainly social media. Search is a bit more unclear since the communication aspect is questionable.

jsilence 7y ago

Yeah, this is simply capitalism. Remove the cause and not the symptoms!