3 ms·

Google being so good no one can replace them is good. If Google abused that position so no one could replace them because they're no longer the best but still

Google being so good no one can replace them is good. If Google abused that position so no one could replace them because they're no longer the best but still big, that's a problem. We're not there yet

rsstack 6y ago
Google Search is so good because it has access to exclusive data it collected in an immaterial way (not through search queries or crawling). Anyone can write a search engine, no one can write a search engine that's based on Google data. And no one can collect data similar to Google data, because this "Google has better quality so we have to use them" argument is also being used in a dozen other verticals.
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  They're free to do what Google did: spend billions on eb crawlers, offer extensive free services like Gmail and chrome and build their own datasets. Plus, it doesn't really matter: it's not a problem for someone to offer a good service. It's a problem for them to offer a bad one and then force it on people because they're big.
  - rsstack 6y ago
    Yeah, that's pretty much how monopolies (anti-competitive companies) work: you could replicate the entire Google ecosystem, but without doing all of that you can't compete with any segment of Google. It is not reasonable to require of any competitor in the search engine field to offer their own ad network, mail service, cloud service, cloud computing service, enterprise offering. This is illegal, as hopefully the anti-trust lawsuit will show. It's a smart business practice, but once you cross a certain threshold it is regulated by the government because it is no longer good for society.
    - LatteLazy 6y ago
      I agree about barriers to entry helping Google maintain their monopoly. We disagree about whether monopolies themselves are illegal as you say. From the wiki page laying out the US law in this (feel free to correct me if Aussie law differs?): >The courts have interpreted this to mean that monopoly is not unlawful per se, but only if acquired through prohibited conduct. >When enterprises are not under public ownership, and where regulation does not foreclose the application of antitrust law, two requirements must be shown for the offense of monopolization. First, the alleged monopolist must possess sufficient power in an accurately defined market for its products or services. Second, the monopolist must have used its power in a prohibited way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law I don't think Google meets the second requirement. I believe we agree it meets the first?
      - rsstack 6y ago
        Reading right after the end of your quote: "... Second, the monopolist must have used its power in a prohibited way. The categories of prohibited conduct are not closed, and are contested in theory. Historically they have been held to include exclusive dealing, price discrimination, refusing to supply an essential facility, product tying and predatory pricing." Unfortunately for the prosecutors, the big tech companies have abused their power in ways that couldn't have existed in the past, so they will have to set precedents in these anti-trust cases - but the law does allow for prosecutors to claim that Google's behavior is abusive by the _spirit_ of the law. I hope they do a good job, because we'll need these precedents for the next few decades.
        LatteLazy 6y ago
        That's a fair response. Would you mind speculating on what Google are doing that breaks the spirit of the law and what new categories of prohibited conduct we might look forwards to? I think there is something of a reckoning coming for FB, Google, Twitter etc around fake news. But I'd imagine that's a separate issue to antitrust.
        rsstack 6y ago
8note 6y ago
I think search is important enough that countries should consider it of strategic value to in house. Australia outsourcing it to American companies leaves them open to media control by foreign governments
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  I'm quite sympathetic to your point of view. I'd love to see governments ensuring a plurality of media is available and higher quality, factual, pieces are promoted. Sadly this isn't that. This would further entrench the murdoch empire that's a blight on most English speaking countries' media econ systems.
  - joeyjeremiah 6y ago
    That's just not true. The proposed legislation does not overtly favour News Corp any more than any other Australian news organisation. News Corp will likely continue to dominate in Australia only because of its reach and it's ability to rely on a real estate website to make the books look good). SBS, ABC, Guardian, Fairfax/Nine all get their share of the pie in the legislation.
bllguo 6y ago
yes, the terminology is getting distorted too much. monopolies are not illegal. the problem is if they are maintained by anticompetitive behavior
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  I think people are upset about social issues (wealth inequality, changing social structures etc). I think that becomes anger at big institutions, from government to banks to "big tech". I think people see Anti Trust as a way to bash big tech. And no one stops to think "what are we actually trying to achieve here?". They just think something has to be done and this is something...
TheCoelacanth 6y ago
It's the other shit that Google pushes via their search monopoly that's the problem, not just the search monopoly itself.

rsstack 6y ago

Google Search is so good because it has access to exclusive data it collected in an immaterial way (not through search queries or crawling). Anyone can write a search engine, no one can write a search engine that's based on Google data. And no one can collect data similar to Google data, because this "Google has better quality so we have to use them" argument is also being used in a dozen other verticals.

LatteLazy 6y ago
They're free to do what Google did: spend billions on eb crawlers, offer extensive free services like Gmail and chrome and build their own datasets. Plus, it doesn't really matter: it's not a problem for someone to offer a good service. It's a problem for them to offer a bad one and then force it on people because they're big.
- rsstack 6y ago
  Yeah, that's pretty much how monopolies (anti-competitive companies) work: you could replicate the entire Google ecosystem, but without doing all of that you can't compete with any segment of Google. It is not reasonable to require of any competitor in the search engine field to offer their own ad network, mail service, cloud service, cloud computing service, enterprise offering. This is illegal, as hopefully the anti-trust lawsuit will show. It's a smart business practice, but once you cross a certain threshold it is regulated by the government because it is no longer good for society.
  - LatteLazy 6y ago
    I agree about barriers to entry helping Google maintain their monopoly. We disagree about whether monopolies themselves are illegal as you say. From the wiki page laying out the US law in this (feel free to correct me if Aussie law differs?): >The courts have interpreted this to mean that monopoly is not unlawful per se, but only if acquired through prohibited conduct. >When enterprises are not under public ownership, and where regulation does not foreclose the application of antitrust law, two requirements must be shown for the offense of monopolization. First, the alleged monopolist must possess sufficient power in an accurately defined market for its products or services. Second, the monopolist must have used its power in a prohibited way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law I don't think Google meets the second requirement. I believe we agree it meets the first?
    - rsstack 6y ago
      Reading right after the end of your quote: "... Second, the monopolist must have used its power in a prohibited way. The categories of prohibited conduct are not closed, and are contested in theory. Historically they have been held to include exclusive dealing, price discrimination, refusing to supply an essential facility, product tying and predatory pricing." Unfortunately for the prosecutors, the big tech companies have abused their power in ways that couldn't have existed in the past, so they will have to set precedents in these anti-trust cases - but the law does allow for prosecutors to claim that Google's behavior is abusive by the _spirit_ of the law. I hope they do a good job, because we'll need these precedents for the next few decades.
      - LatteLazy 6y ago
        That's a fair response. Would you mind speculating on what Google are doing that breaks the spirit of the law and what new categories of prohibited conduct we might look forwards to? I think there is something of a reckoning coming for FB, Google, Twitter etc around fake news. But I'd imagine that's a separate issue to antitrust.
        rsstack 6y ago

8note 6y ago

I think search is important enough that countries should consider it of strategic value to in house. Australia outsourcing it to American companies leaves them open to media control by foreign governments

LatteLazy 6y ago
I'm quite sympathetic to your point of view. I'd love to see governments ensuring a plurality of media is available and higher quality, factual, pieces are promoted. Sadly this isn't that. This would further entrench the murdoch empire that's a blight on most English speaking countries' media econ systems.
- joeyjeremiah 6y ago
  That's just not true. The proposed legislation does not overtly favour News Corp any more than any other Australian news organisation. News Corp will likely continue to dominate in Australia only because of its reach and it's ability to rely on a real estate website to make the books look good). SBS, ABC, Guardian, Fairfax/Nine all get their share of the pie in the legislation.

bllguo 6y ago

yes, the terminology is getting distorted too much. monopolies are not illegal. the problem is if they are maintained by anticompetitive behavior

LatteLazy 6y ago
I think people are upset about social issues (wealth inequality, changing social structures etc). I think that becomes anger at big institutions, from government to banks to "big tech". I think people see Anti Trust as a way to bash big tech. And no one stops to think "what are we actually trying to achieve here?". They just think something has to be done and this is something...

TheCoelacanth 6y ago

It's the other shit that Google pushes via their search monopoly that's the problem, not just the search monopoly itself.