7 ms·
Do we have any recourse against this monopoly, other than voicing our concerns repeatedly while they ignore us? Can we launch a class action lawsuit against Go
by dessant 7y ago
Do we have any recourse against this monopoly, other than voicing our concerns repeatedly while they ignore us?
Can we launch a class action lawsuit against Google if they harm people by limiting consumer choice, and force us to be tracked everywhere using reCAPTCHA v3 and various other methods?
Keep in mind that not sending your data to Google is not a real option, there are several government services, health care providers and utility companies using reCAPTCHA, you personal data either gets harvested by Google, or you're barred from accessing essential online services.
What can EU and US citizens do to initiate an investigation into Google's data harvesting practices?
- microcolonel 7y agoWhen it comes to search results, there are great competitors. You can not credibly argue that Google holds a monopoly on webpage search.
- ddtaylor 7y agoWhat is wrong with just not using Google instead?
- progval 7y agoAs your parent comment wrote: "Keep in mind that not sending your data to Google is not a real option, there are several government services, heath care providers and utility companies using reCAPTCHA, you personal data either gets harvested by Google, or you're barred from accessing essential online services."
- ddtaylor 7y agoThanks I missed that part
- 9HZZRfNlpR 7y agoIt's impossible, they track and bother you even if you selectively ignore them. It's sick that we tolerate it, you wouldn't tolerate peeping Tom's either if they promised to anonymity their data. Hey your daughter is anonymous and face blurred, there is no harm done. You can ignore all the public beaches, just opt out like that.
- RonanTheGrey 7y agoYou know what, I'm going to start using that. Let's call a spade a spade, this is exactly what Google is doing. Make this concept popular and even the layperson will understand what Google is doing to them.
- yyyk 7y agoI think that just expressing our opinion, and doing what little we can will have an effect in the long run. Google is far from invincible - it still needs to answer to shareholders, and has (or will get) competitors and legal scrutiny. Eventually, like previous major computer companies, its monopoly will weaken, and it will have to play a bit nicer.
- ConceptJunkie 7y agoThat only works if the shareholders care about Google being ethical, as opposed to caring about maximizing profit. How likely do you think that is to happen? (Genuine question, not being sarcastic)
- yyyk 7y agoI do not expect most shareholders to act ethically. If anything, I think their drive for short-term profit is weakening Google far more than what any 'ethical shareholder' could have done or would have wanted to do. I was arguing that Google/Alphabet is subject to the same forces that brought down the reign of other dominant companies in the software industry like IBM and Microsoft* . Eventually Google's reign will crumble too, and probably for the same reasons. Our actions, albeit small can push in that direction, just like small actions helped to bring down others. Choosing other computer providers made IBM unable to extend its practices to minicomputers and left them vulnerable to MS. Linux played a role in denying server marketshare to MS. Popular opinion aided the antitrust cases against both MS and IBM - it is not commonly known these days there was a massive antitrust case against IBM which lasted even longer than the MS case. * Note that both of these companies still exist and are very wealthy. I for one, do not seek to abolish Google - just to limit their ambitions to something that can coexist with others.
- chillfox 7y agoThe recourse you have available is writing letters to your elected representatives and if they fail to take adequate action then to vote for someone else who will take action.
- dbuder 7y agoWhat if you're in a two party system and both have been bought off? We need to take real action soon.
- falcrist 7y agoGentle reminder that Alphabet is now listed as one of the biggest lobbying firms in the US. They spend tens of millions telling lawmakers what laws to write.
- dotancohen 7y ago> Keep in mind that not sending your data to Google is not a > real option, there are several government services, health > care providers and utility companies using reCAPTCHA, > you personal data either gets harvested by Google, > or you're barred from accessing essential online services. Google is not the problem, the government services, health care providers, and utility companies are the problem. You will need to get in touch with your local ombudsman and deal with each one individually.
- tom_ 7y agoIndentation introduces a code block, meaning a mono spaced font and no word wrap.
- dotancohen 7y agoWhat would be a better way to quote, such that the quote is distinguishable from my own prose?
- zozbot234 7y agoThe canonical way is <https://news.ycombinator.com/> https://news.ycombinator.com/> - though it doesn't actually seem to work here. Whatever, just use < > and spaces.
- nine_k 7y ago> What would be a better way to quote Using italics by putting asterisks around the quote seems to work reasonably well.
- dotancohen 7y ago> Test quote. Does this line wrap? Will this line wrap? Might ever this line be found to wrap? Should it be possible, on the fringes of the browser, to wrap a line so fine as this? Thanks, I'll try it.
- journalctl 7y ago> Do we have any recourse against this monopoly...? Once upon a time, Congress used to write and pass laws to protect Americans from egregious abuses of power like this. Of course, that time is long gone.
- laggan 7y ago"butbutbutbut regulation bad" - average HN reader
- solomontribe 7y agoThey've figured out monopoly at home is monopoly abroad, so it might as well be beneficial to keep them to exert power over foreign countries.
- dehrmann 7y ago> egregious abuses of power like this Do you honestly think removing URLs from search results is an "egregious abuse of power?" This is the company that buys credit card transactions from Visa et al. and associates them with your maps and and history for the benefit of advertisers, and you're complaining about them removing a design element 95% of people probably don't care about?
- journalctl 7y agoI meant Google in general. It’s yet another tiny step in a terrible direction. At this point I would love to legislate most of Google out of existence, personally.
- xiphias2 7y agoGoogle does lots of great things for people, so it looks to me like you're overreacting. Finding the right balance is important in regulation.
- journalctl 7y agoIt’s important to keep in mind that imbalance goes both ways.
- blihp 7y agoYes: minimize or stop using them. There are alternate search options. The web has very little lock-in (on the user side) compared to say desktop and mobile... make use of that. While there's a chance the EU might do something about the behavior, I think it's safe to say that here in the US the odds of anything pro-consumer happening anytime soon are effectively nil.
- dessant 7y ago> Yes: minimize or stop using them... The web has very little lock-in There are people who could not register to vote in time because reCAPTCHA has blocked them.
- blihp 7y agoNotice that I said on the user side. I completely agree that when a web site uses various Google (or other) services you're stuck. However, the article is about Google removing URLs from search results... you can do something about that.
- v7p1Qbt1im 7y agoWhat‘s your alternative to using reCAPTCHA? Have you tried building a page with login function without it?
- cromon 7y agowww.hcaptcha.com www.solvemedia.com A load of other anti-spam captchas not owned by Google...
- RonanTheGrey 7y agoNot using a captcha at all? 300,000 users a month and we don't have any problems. Why do people think this is so critical? Just because TEH GOOGLE convinced us it is in order to push their product?
- behnamoh 7y agoSo basically after a few decades of using the Internet, we're now at a place where we are willing to stop using some of the most famous services we're accustomed to. Strangely, those are mostly owned by Google and Facebook.
- pmoriarty 7y ago"Do we have any recourse against this monopoly, other than voicing our concerns repeatedly while they ignore us?" There are a lot of Google employees (and potential Google employees) on HN. So if "we" includes them, then yes, "we" could do a lot... like not work for Google.
- dessant 7y agoThey could do something better than resigning: voice their concerns both internally and in public. I have yet to see a HN comment posted by a current Google employee that has criticized Google's data harvesting practices or monopolistic behavior.
- kaikai 7y agoThey would be foolish to publicly criticize their employer. Just because someone doesn’t post criticism publicly doesn’t mean they aren’t pushing internally. In the end though, the best way to hurt them is to walk away.
- dessant 7y agoPersonal sacrifice is often required for things to change. Any developer who publicly speaks up about these issues may be hurting their employment prospects, not just Google employees.
- scarface74 7y agoThe consumers of Google are advertisers and they have other choices. Users also can easily go to another search engine. Why sue Google because users decide not to go anywhere else?
- mistersquid 7y agoUS anti-trust actions have historically been triggered by abuse of market dominance (e.g. leveraging market dominance in other markets; anti-competitive behavior in a dominated market) which is not coupled to the ease of using a different service. Ease-of-switching puts the onus on the user to recognize corporate violations of anti-trust law rather than upon the company violating anti-trust regulation. It doesn't really make sense to presume users would or should change their behavior if a provider violates anti-trust law.
- scarface74 7y agoI keep seeing that “companies shouldn’t use their dominance in one area to get into another area”. So does that mean that Netflix shouldn’t have used its dominance in DVD rentals to get into streaming and just die when another company did? Should Apple not have been allowed to use its dominance in the music/media player business to get into the smart phone business? Antitrust was traditionally used when a company kept other competitors out. How is Google stopping another competitor from creating a search engine? The fact is that no one is forced to use Google. People can just as easily type bing.com in their browser as google.com. In fact, the dominant desktop OS, doesn’t have Google as the default search engine and thanks to a consent decree - at least in the EU - Google cant force manufacturers of Android devices to make it the default search engine. If Microsoft wanted to outbid Google to be the default search engine on iOS devices it could.
- mistersquid 7y ago> It is illegal for a dominant company such as Google to use its dominance in one market in order to provide its own product an anti-competitive advantage in a separate market, the European Commission has recently decided. > Such conduct constitutes an abuse of a dominant position and hence is in breach of competition law. > It is not illegal for a company to enjoy dominance in a particular market. However, a company which is dominant in one market can easily use its market power to cement or further expand its dominance, or leverage it into separate markets. [0] Regarding Netflix and Apple, the answer is "it depends". Cases are determined on a case-by-case basis. Not sure we disagree (?). My understanding is that Google has a practical monopoly on search. This is not illegal in and of itself. Anti-competitive practices that leverage its dominance in search, however, would likely run afoul of EU and US antitrust regulations. (I'm not an attorney, and My understanding of antitrust law is at the level of layperson. ) [0] https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/Google-s-abusive-use-of-market-dominance.653057 https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/Google-s-abusive-use-...