4 ms·

The most interesting thing is the allegation of coordination between Google and Facebook on page 5, paragraph 12.

switch11 6y ago
that is super interesting Waiting for when they realize there is a silent agreement between Amazon + Google + Facebook and that they do coordinated attacks against their rivals and also against any company that is growing quickly
- LanceH 6y ago
  The Sherman Act is brilliant. High prices - gouging. Low prices - stifling competition. Same prices - collusion. It simply doesn't allow for any sort of equilibrium.
  - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
    Thats so reductionist as to be meaningless? Prices are a continuum, and have more values than 'high, low, same'.
  - dhruvarora013 6y ago
    Aren't you missing the biggest point of the Act? The free market equilibrium that you mention is what it seeks to correct. It's not about the prices but the monopolization it attempts to break. If there is only a single entity dictating the prices in the market, then it doesn't matter what the price spectrum is - the motive is anti-free market
- ramphastidae 6y ago
  Can you give any examples of coordination against competitors besides the Apple wage fixing scandal?
  - switch11 6y ago
    This thread has several I'll add a few (while including a couple from this thread) Let's see 1) Google Facebook - why was Google+ ignored and shut down 2) Why has Facebook never launched a search engine 3) Amazon + Google Why has Google completely ignored books and not done anything? They grew Chrome into #1 browser using Search dominance Why the heck have they ignored books? Why did they buy Oyster (the first ebook subscription service for Apple devices) and immediately shut it down paving the way for Kindle Unlimited to become the dominant 4) Why did Amazon shut down A9 its search engine? Every other area they are willing to throw billions of dollars. In search engines they didn't even try 5) Amazon + Google why is Google ignoring Shopping why did Google buy one of the biggest AFfiliate Networks and then close it down 6) Amazon + Google Why is Amazon so high up in search results for every single @##$ product review and product Does it have to do with amount of money Amazon spends on Google Ads (which would also be illegal) or a secret/silent agreement (even more illegal) 7) When companies or organization get attacked (such as corporate organizations) how is it that it is always a PINCER attack and always at the same time i.e. Google will 'demonetize' the site at the same time as Youtube demonetizes the ads (Youtube is still owned by Google) as Paypal will kick out the site (separate company, acts in concert) as Twitter will block accounts So 3 separate companies and 4 separate divisions all decide on EXACT SAME DAY to go after a company or a site This playbook is used to attack both a) republican/conservative sites b) companies that are growing very fast to that throw in Facebook 8) Why do fast growing companies that are a threat to ONE out of Amazon, Google, Facebook all suddenly face shadow bans AT THE SAME TIME from all three companies i.e. products dropped in Amazon Store search organic traffic from Google drops Facebook reach drops * There is someone/something World X Council or something And some companies are apart of it They have divided out parts of the Internet And when someone is a threat to grow too big ALL companies attack that fast growing companies They have a hitlist of 10,000 or 5,000 companies to keep an eye on and 500 biggest threats and they go after these IN CONCERT
    - ramphastidae 6y ago
      Got it. So you have literally zero examples besides your wild, baseless speculation.
jml7c5 6y ago
The potentially interesting part seems to be redacted? What is under that black box could be anything from incredible to mundane.
three_seagrass 6y ago
Google collaborates with many of the FAANGs - like Apple and the contact tracing APIs - so I'm really curious what made the cut here with Facebook.
- nl 6y ago
  Did you read the paragraph posted? It's pretty clear (in the context of a monopoly complaint): In March2017, Google’s largest Big Tech rival, Facebook, announced that it would throw its weight behind header bidding. Like Google, Facebook brought millions of advertisers on board to reach the users on its social network. In light of Facebook’s deep knowledge of its users, Facebook could use header bidding to operate an electronic marketplace for online ads in competition with Google. Facebook’s marketplace for online ads is known as “Facebook Audience Network” or FAN. Google understood the severity of the threat to its position if Facebook were to enter the market and support header bidding. To diffuse this threat, Google made overtures to Facebook. Internal Facebook communications reveal that [redacted] and In the end, Facebook curtailed its involvement with header bidding in return for Google giving Facebook information, speed, and other advantages in the auctions that Google runs for publishers’ mobile app advertising inventory each month in the United States. In these auctions, Facebook and Google compete head-to-head as bidders... [snip].. The parties agree on for how often Facebook would [redacted] publishers’ auctions—literally manipulating the auction with [redacted] for how often Facebook would bid and win.
  - three_seagrass 6y ago
    Nope, I missed that part. That definitely seems like bid rigging collusion if true.
  - mtnygard 6y ago
    This seems like the textbook definition of market division. From the first Google result for "antitrust law market division" (https://www.classlawgroup.com/antitrust/unlawful-practices/market-division https://www.classlawgroup.com/antitrust/unlawful-practices/m...) > In almost all circumstances a market allocation agreement will be illegal under antitrust law. Federal antitrust law treats a market allocation amongst competitors as a per se violation of the antitrust laws. Other types of potentially anticompetitive behavior are only illegal if their anti-competitive effects outweigh their pro-competitive efficiencies. But per se violations are automatic violations of federal antitrust law.

that is super interesting Waiting for when they realize there is a silent agreement between Amazon + Google + Facebook and that they do coordinated attacks against their rivals and also against any company that is growing quickly

LanceH 6y ago
The Sherman Act is brilliant. High prices - gouging. Low prices - stifling competition. Same prices - collusion. It simply doesn't allow for any sort of equilibrium.
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  Thats so reductionist as to be meaningless? Prices are a continuum, and have more values than 'high, low, same'.
- dhruvarora013 6y ago
  Aren't you missing the biggest point of the Act? The free market equilibrium that you mention is what it seeks to correct. It's not about the prices but the monopolization it attempts to break. If there is only a single entity dictating the prices in the market, then it doesn't matter what the price spectrum is - the motive is anti-free market
ramphastidae 6y ago
Can you give any examples of coordination against competitors besides the Apple wage fixing scandal?
- switch11 6y ago
  This thread has several I'll add a few (while including a couple from this thread) Let's see 1) Google Facebook - why was Google+ ignored and shut down 2) Why has Facebook never launched a search engine 3) Amazon + Google Why has Google completely ignored books and not done anything? They grew Chrome into #1 browser using Search dominance Why the heck have they ignored books? Why did they buy Oyster (the first ebook subscription service for Apple devices) and immediately shut it down paving the way for Kindle Unlimited to become the dominant 4) Why did Amazon shut down A9 its search engine? Every other area they are willing to throw billions of dollars. In search engines they didn't even try 5) Amazon + Google why is Google ignoring Shopping why did Google buy one of the biggest AFfiliate Networks and then close it down 6) Amazon + Google Why is Amazon so high up in search results for every single @##$ product review and product Does it have to do with amount of money Amazon spends on Google Ads (which would also be illegal) or a secret/silent agreement (even more illegal) 7) When companies or organization get attacked (such as corporate organizations) how is it that it is always a PINCER attack and always at the same time i.e. Google will 'demonetize' the site at the same time as Youtube demonetizes the ads (Youtube is still owned by Google) as Paypal will kick out the site (separate company, acts in concert) as Twitter will block accounts So 3 separate companies and 4 separate divisions all decide on EXACT SAME DAY to go after a company or a site This playbook is used to attack both a) republican/conservative sites b) companies that are growing very fast to that throw in Facebook 8) Why do fast growing companies that are a threat to ONE out of Amazon, Google, Facebook all suddenly face shadow bans AT THE SAME TIME from all three companies i.e. products dropped in Amazon Store search organic traffic from Google drops Facebook reach drops * There is someone/something World X Council or something And some companies are apart of it They have divided out parts of the Internet And when someone is a threat to grow too big ALL companies attack that fast growing companies They have a hitlist of 10,000 or 5,000 companies to keep an eye on and 500 biggest threats and they go after these IN CONCERT
  - ramphastidae 6y ago
    Got it. So you have literally zero examples besides your wild, baseless speculation.

jml7c5 6y ago

The potentially interesting part seems to be redacted? What is under that black box could be anything from incredible to mundane.

three_seagrass 6y ago

Google collaborates with many of the FAANGs - like Apple and the contact tracing APIs - so I'm really curious what made the cut here with Facebook.

nl 6y ago
Did you read the paragraph posted? It's pretty clear (in the context of a monopoly complaint): In March2017, Google’s largest Big Tech rival, Facebook, announced that it would throw its weight behind header bidding. Like Google, Facebook brought millions of advertisers on board to reach the users on its social network. In light of Facebook’s deep knowledge of its users, Facebook could use header bidding to operate an electronic marketplace for online ads in competition with Google. Facebook’s marketplace for online ads is known as “Facebook Audience Network” or FAN. Google understood the severity of the threat to its position if Facebook were to enter the market and support header bidding. To diffuse this threat, Google made overtures to Facebook. Internal Facebook communications reveal that [redacted] and In the end, Facebook curtailed its involvement with header bidding in return for Google giving Facebook information, speed, and other advantages in the auctions that Google runs for publishers’ mobile app advertising inventory each month in the United States. In these auctions, Facebook and Google compete head-to-head as bidders... [snip].. The parties agree on for how often Facebook would [redacted] publishers’ auctions—literally manipulating the auction with [redacted] for how often Facebook would bid and win.
- three_seagrass 6y ago
  Nope, I missed that part. That definitely seems like bid rigging collusion if true.
- mtnygard 6y ago
  This seems like the textbook definition of market division. From the first Google result for "antitrust law market division" (https://www.classlawgroup.com/antitrust/unlawful-practices/market-division https://www.classlawgroup.com/antitrust/unlawful-practices/m...) > In almost all circumstances a market allocation agreement will be illegal under antitrust law. Federal antitrust law treats a market allocation amongst competitors as a per se violation of the antitrust laws. Other types of potentially anticompetitive behavior are only illegal if their anti-competitive effects outweigh their pro-competitive efficiencies. But per se violations are automatic violations of federal antitrust law.