5 ms·

Click-Bait title. Better title/article. https://www.forbes.com/sites/beasleydavid/2020/02/21/report-google-pushes-back-on-us-states-investigation/ https://www.

Click-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 ago
WSJ 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 ago
  Clickbait 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 ago
    Immediate 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 ago
      I 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 ago
        There'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 ago
        Their 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 ago
        The 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 ago
Google 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 ago
      I 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 ago
The 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

kyrra 7y ago

WSJ 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 ago
Clickbait 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 ago
  Immediate 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 ago
    I 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 ago
      There'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 ago
        Their 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 ago
      The 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 ago

Google 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 ago
    I 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 ago

The 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