16 ms·
Google resists demands from states in digital-ad probe
- NikolaeVarius 7y agoClick-Bait title. Better title/article. https://www.forbes.com/sites/beasleydavid/2020/02/21/report-google-pushes-back-on-us-states-investigation/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/beasleydavid/2020/02/21/report-...
- kyrra 7y agoWSJ is the origin of the story (even Forbes links to them as being the source). How is it clickbait? Also, the title on the WSJ article right now is: "Google Resists Demand From States in Digital-Ad Probe". Also from the article: > Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is leading the investigation by 48 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Guam, said the company’s actions suggest it is withholding information that could be damaging. > “Every indication right now is they don’t believe that they’re clean because they don’t act in any way like they are,” Mr. Paxton said in an interview. There are lots of responses from Google's side of the aisle about why they think they are in the right, but this is just a battle of he-said she-said until they go to court to fight it out. (I'm a googler, opinions are my own)
- NikolaeVarius 7y agoClickbait can be true and still be clickbait because it picks out a single controversial sounding aspect of a story and uses that to draw people in. There can be a an actual reason that Google is not giving up documents immediately, which is brought up. I don't expect any company/person to give up everything willingly to 3rd parties.
- s3r3nity 7y agoImmediate reason for not giving up documents: Google is worried about leaks involving their search algorithms, which are very closely guarded (and for good reason - it's been their bread & butter up to now.) This is going to be interesting to watch, as the 'States might successfully argue that to properly understand if anticompetitive behavior took place, they need to open up the hood to the car, so to speak, and take a look at what's underneath...
- ocdtrekkie 7y agoI think a lot of people would disagree that they should be allowed to keep their search algorithms secret at this juncture. The impact that this proprietary decisionmaker has on global business with no oversight is insane.
- magduf 7y agoThere's a bunch of other search engines out there; no one is forcing you to use Google search. Duckduckgo, Bing, Yandex, Baidu, etc. are all viable alternatives. If Google needs to open-source their search algorithms, then why shouldn't all their competitors?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- ocdtrekkie 7y agoTheir competitors aren't monopolies. The problem is that I don't use Google Search, but Google Search still impacts me in a way I can't control. Even if I use DuckDuckGo, my business lives or dies on what Google Search ranks it. Google is the ultimate kingmaker. They decide what businesses survive or die.
- enitihas 7y agoThe amount of proprietary stuff that has immense impact on global business (with no oversight) is huge: 1. Microsoft Windows 2. Microsoft Office I think any big tech company falls into this. And unlike google search, there is no alternative for Microsoft windows. You can change your search engine and keep using a new one without any trouble or training. Off course, you can say that the others are not good enough, but companies don't get dismantled because competitors are not good enough. Switching from MS windows is alas, not possible. The main thing is the large number of applications available for it and not for other platforms, and also needs significantly more training than switching away from Google search.
- 7y ago
- mfer 7y agoGoogle notes... > “But we’re also concerned with the irregular way this investigation is proceeding, including unusual arrangements with advisers who work with our competitors and vocal complainants." There are two interesting things, to me, about this. First, as Google has expanded into many more things it's hard to find consulting technologists who don't complete with Google in some manner. For example, Google has a web site builder for businesses. It could be argued any web developer is a competitor. Second, the language use of "irregular" and "unusual" is interesting. I wonder what is unusual here. The specifics. Or, is this language meant to make us feel or think something. The US government regularly uses contractors and consultants. Is that unusual in investigations like this? How unusual are investigations like this?
- asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago> First, as Google has expanded into many more things it's hard to find consulting technologists who don't complete with Google in some manner. You could say that, but no such stretching is needed in this case. News Corp has been a vocal opponent of Google for some time. It's not a case of a lawyer working on something that happened to be in a business that Google competes in.
- mfer 7y ago> It's not a case of a lawyer working on something that happened to be in a business that Google competes in. In the Forbes link Google talks about competitors. The legal folks from News Corp would be in a different category to that. I appreciate the desire and arguably the need to have different people at the news organizations and people pushing for causes (e.g., going after Google for potential abuses or issues). I do with new organizations were more interested in reporting the news and not making the news, if that makes sense.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 7y agoI guess there are two different sorts of advisers they are talking about. "Vocal complainants" seems to refer to the former News Corp lawyer who is advising the case. Advisers who work with competitors is presumably referring to technical consulting firms working on the case. It's not clear which competitors they work for, but presumably Google is not objecting to a consulting firm that also works with, say, Costco, on the theory that Costco is a competitor in the electronics sales market. That would be pretty thin, and Google would have no reason to object. Presumably Google is referring to a consulting firm that works heavily with e.g. Microsoft or Oracle.
- dang 7y agoThe submitted title was "Google resists giving up documents in investigation of anticompetitive practices". Not sure if WSJ rewrote it or the submitter did, but we've changed to the article title now, as the site guidelines ask. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- scarface74 7y agoDoes anyone else find it suspicious that a government run by the party that is suppose to be hands off and “pro business” is going after a company run by “left coast liberal elites”?
- s3r3nity 7y agoMore accurately, the party is pro free market - which makes sense that a Republican-led government would want to enforce anti-competition or antitrust laws. That said, in theory at least, the US Justice Department is supposed to be unbiased and not directed by the whims of the parties.
- scarface74 7y agoTraditionally, Republican administration don’t block mergers and they don’t try to break up companies. The Justice Department has never been unbiased. I don’t recall any scandals where the justice department were obviously been manipulated by a Democratic President (I’m not putting it past them), but there have been many reports about Bush II and Trump. But even if it is not stated, the Justice departments more or less goes after cases along party lines.
- _jal 7y agoSuspicious? No. Obvious? Yes. Not Google, but part of the overall strategy: "“We can’t remove all of it because it will disproportionately affect conservatives,” said Kaplan, a former George W. Bush White House official and now the head of Facebook’s Washington office, according to people familiar with the meeting who spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect professional relationships." https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/02/20/facebook-republican-shift/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/02/20/faceboo...
- dontblink 7y agoNo. You are correct in pointing out politics is a factor which is unfortunate. Trump wishes to punish Google for not helping him with another election. You won't see any articles on Oracle or Facebook and antitrust because they are currently supporting him.
- notamanager 7y agoFun fact: Google is allowed to defend itself and is not obliged to give prosecutors all they want. The framing of “resists giving documents” purposely makes it similar to “resisting arrest”. Fun fact 2: the AGs are being advised by a former News Corp (read: WSJ) lawyer who also advises other google competitors (https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/10/08/texas-attorney-general-googles-new-competition-cop-says-everything-is-table/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/10/08/texas-a...) Fun fact 3: AGs are elected so they seek publicity, they are also corrupt: the one in Mississippi was issuing subpoenas to Google on behalf of the entertainment industry (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141217/06353329462/attorney-general-downplays-ties-to-mpaa-despite-letter-he-sent-google-revealed-as-written-mpaa.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141217/06353329462/attor...)
- mfer 7y agoWhile I'm not making a statement on either side in this case... A situation where one side is corrupt or doing things wrong does not mean the other side is right or not corrupt. Both sides are capable of doing wrong and corrupt things.
- notamanager 7y agoSure but defendants (which they aren't even) are presumed innocent and the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Also that's not how the WSJ is presenting this or anything else they publish about google.
- 0xEFF 7y agoCriminal defendants, not civil.
- stcredzero 7y ago> > Sure but defendants are presumed innocent and burden of proof is on the prosecution. > Criminal defendants, not civil. Everyone hates presumption of innocence when they are on the plaintiff/accuser's side. But strangely enough, everyone clings to it when they're on the defendant/accused's side. It's almost like it's a universal principle! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human... Make no mistake. Anyone who wants to erode presumption of innocence and due process is for the power of governments and money over the individual, unwittingly or not. (Strangely enough, almost everyone who tries such erosion does it in the same way, no matter if they're in a totalitarian state or in a democracy; it's all done in the name of "justice.")
- tylerl 7y agoGoogle has a long history of pushing back for on government requests for data relating to its customers, and they have years worth of history establishing that initial government requests are always overreaching. Is anyone surprised that they'd push back on requests for their own data, especially when it's run by state AGs (i.e. politically motivated) and involves turning trade secrets directly over to competitors? > “To date, Texas has requested, and we have provided, over 100,000 pages of information,” the spokeswoman said. “But we’re also concerned with the irregular way this investigation is proceeding, including unusual arrangements with advisers who work with our competitors and vocal complainants."
- vanderZwan 7y ago> advisers who work with our competitors and vocal complainants. Isn't that kind of to be expected in an investigation into anti-competitive practices though?
- bagacrap 7y agoI'd say "unusual" implies not "to be expected".
- mmoez 7y agoHistory is repeating itself: IBM, then MS, and now Google.
- wyldfire 7y ago> “But we’re also concerned with the irregular way this investigation is proceeding, including unusual arrangements with advisers who work with our competitors and vocal complainants." Isn't it typical for regulators to work with competitors of the company accused of antitrust violations? Who is better positioned to identify abuses of the market leader? It's regulators' job to assess what about the reports actually is an abuse. While I think a lot of this hubbub is motivated by political grudges, I can't help thinking that we would all be better off if the current generation of popular computers (phones, tablets etc) somehow allowed third party app stores.
- gundmc 7y agoAndroid does allow third party app stores though.
- wyldfire 7y agoWell, yes, for device manufacturers. But what if users could choose their own? Or what if multiple were permitted?
- duxup 7y agoYou personally can install F-Driod. I'm not sure that third party app stores would really address much at all as far as the nature of Google's competitiveness.
- Middleclass 7y agoIt is incomplete because Google Play Services contains functionality closed to developers, unrelated to the free online services provided by Google. Your point stands, nevertheless.
- gundmc 7y agoUsers can install app stores as well. See fdroid and the Amazon App Store.
- 7y ago
- macspoofing 7y agoWell yeah ... any good lawyer or legal team will do everything they can to prevent a fishing expedition. And yes, private individuals and companies are allowed to defend themselves.
- zadkey 7y agoAnyone have an outlined version of the article? Private browsing isn't cutting it for some reason.
- creaghpatr 7y agoGoogle got to be feeling the heat now that their guy and his #2 had to recuse from the investigation. https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-departments-antitrust-chief-removes-himself-from-google-probe-11580822369 https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-departments-antitrust-c...
- zomglings 7y ago> Company is reluctant to surrender some documents in investigation of possible anticompetitive practices This would be true of any company. It would even be true for many individuals. This article is nothing more than a bulletin updating us on the latest developments in the case, painted up to look like more than it is.
- stcredzero 7y agoThis article is nothing more than a bulletin updating us on the latest developments in the case, painted up to look like more than it is. In recent years, since journalists are motivated by clicks/eyeballs, and such things are most easily garnered by outrage, such emotional bias in reporting has sadly become the norm.
- Aperocky 7y agoAppeal to biological instinct to hate and love is always the quickest way to get clicks. The side effect being everything is us vs them nowadays.
- literallycancer 7y agoNah dude, just normal journalism and dumb HNs don't understand the benefit :)
- reaperducer 7y agoThis article is nothing more than a bulletin updating us on the latest developments in the case It's called a "process" article. Some small thing happens in the process of a larger event, and it's updated. It helps the publication later if research has to be done into what happened and what the coverage was. It also indicates to its avid readers that it's following the event long-term and "on" whatever happens. It's just normal journalism. But since the majority of people on HN consume their news in bits and bites here and there, and random headlines, they don't understand the benefit. painted up to look like more than it is. That's more of a matter of opinion than of fact. Sometimes extra background is added to a process story for the benefit of people coming in for the first time, or who will only read a few reports about an event over a period of months or years. /Was a journalist for 20 years in a previous life.
- new_realist 7y ago“Google hasn’t agreed to a waiver that would give state attorneys general documents obtained by the U.S. Justice Department for its own investigation, the Journal said, citing a “person familiar with the situation.”“
- Ohn0 7y agoIs it just me or is it kind of ironic that another headline today involves Google's sort of fast and loose behavior related to being the dominant browser on the market?
- SpicyLemonZest 7y agoI doubt it's a coincidence. I think people are just primed to upvote similar stories like that; it's not like they're both on the front page of CNN or even the Register.
- Ohn0 7y agolol, better downvote me just in case haha
- variable11 7y agoAnyone who works at Google and is involved in wholesale theft and sale of private data can and should be charged with felonies.
- factchecker01 7y agoThe Motto that comes to mind is DONT BE EVIL
- aSplash0fDerp 7y agoOr how about google going off script. If they're not careful, they'll get a sequel using an updated plot twist. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2234155/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2234155/
- guest 7y agowait a minute, a corporation is somewhat less than immediately responsive when deposed? holy fucking shit, stop the presses, this is news!
- toron123 7y agoSad that UE allowed google monopoly to grown in Europe, instead of limiting its access to the market as much as possible and allowing European competition to grown like China did.
- jariel 7y agoNo, it's not sad at all that the EU didn't 'limit Google's access'. What's sad is that Europe can't compete in these things on it's own. Now - you could make a strong argument that G shouldn't be allowed to own have mobile, search, ads, maps etc. which creates altogether another kind of monopoly, but, there's no need to swing the ball so far as to 'limit access'.
- neonate 7y agohttps://archive.md/mDQdM https://archive.md/mDQdM
- lwb 7y agoMeta: Do the majority of people on HN have WSJ subscriptions? Or is there some other way to view these articles? I see something from the WSJ get to the front page at least once every couple weeks. My gut tells me that either people just only read & comment on the first paragraph, or they're reading the articles for free some other way.
- friedman23 7y agoI pay money for the WSJ, in my opinion it's the best newspaper available today. Washington Post is a distant second.
- istjohn 7y agoYou can usually get around paywalls using http://archive.is http://archive.is
- mlb_hn 7y agoI have a WSJ subscription. I don't know of any easy way around their paywall, makes it one of the special cases for scraping because you would actually need to login.
- dang 7y agoUsers nearly always post workarounds in the threads. You can find such a link in this thread. Admittedly it can be a pain to look for, once many comments have appeared.
- 3xblah 7y ago"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." "It is possible that information could be made available to the authorities." - Former Google CEO, Google Chairman and Alphabet CEO Perhaps statements that could apply to David could apply equally to Goliath.