5 ms·

So can someone with some knowledge about Google’s and Facebook’s past give an idea on how legally and morally good/bad this is compared to previous things they

So can someone with some knowledge about Google’s and Facebook’s past give an idea on how legally and morally good/bad this is compared to previous things they did? It seems really bad, to the point that Black Mirror-esque things are simply a decade away. With that said, I don’t know enough to draw that conclusion.

prepend 6y ago
Seems like Google’s internal units were bidding up ad prices. Since no one can see that but Google, ad buyers didn’t know they were paying higher prices. It could just be stupidity. Or bad policy. Or it could be systematic to maximize their as sales. Google’s not stupid, so them allowing it means they were aware and will able to easily explain why it’s not that big of a deal. It’s like if eBay sellers had their subsidiaries bidding up prices on their items. And not disclosing. Maybe there’s a good reason, probably just sneaky greed.
- xhkkffbf 6y ago
  Shill bidding is illegal in auctions. They've represented these ad markets as auctions, but it seems like they aren't. You're bidding against some machine designed to make you pay more. Can anyone offer a legit explanation.
  - URSpider94 6y ago
    One possibility: Google creates a fully independent subsidiary that bids on AdSense auctions with a goal of turning a profit by reselling the slots they buy. This might make sense if Google sees large inefficiencies in the ad market that are being taken advantage of by third party resellers, at the expense of their customers. It’s not a great look, but it could be done in a way that is aboveboard from a legal standpoint.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      That was the idea, wasn't it? Only they didn't make it independent, but gave it access to data that they didn't give to external bidders, because it would be less efficient (read: less profitable) if it had to act on public information.
- throw14082020 6y ago
  If ebay did that, they might end up buying a whole lotta crap. This technique is not a money pit when information is available. I'm not clear on the information available to publishers, but I don't think its as clear as ebay. The legality is more subtle
  - prepend 6y ago
    Not if they used their proprietary data to bid up but never win auctions. Especially since they know other bidders max price willing. So bidding for max-1 would result in no wins, but lots of extra money. This would make me not use eBay. But there’s really not an alternative for ad markets controlled by Google.
- fakedang 6y ago
  eBay sellers don't control their marketplace nor do they have access to all the internal data that can influence purchasing decisions. Google controls its ad market fully.
- smt1 6y ago
  Reminds of wallstreet sell side firms front running their own clients.
xiphias2 6y ago
I think it's the same category as inflating conversions from the point of the advertiser (both are nasty, here it is more easy to prove criminal intent): if you are an ad buyer, make sure that you are adapting your bids and measure everything yourself.

prepend 6y ago

Seems like Google’s internal units were bidding up ad prices. Since no one can see that but Google, ad buyers didn’t know they were paying higher prices. It could just be stupidity. Or bad policy. Or it could be systematic to maximize their as sales. Google’s not stupid, so them allowing it means they were aware and will able to easily explain why it’s not that big of a deal. It’s like if eBay sellers had their subsidiaries bidding up prices on their items. And not disclosing. Maybe there’s a good reason, probably just sneaky greed.

xhkkffbf 6y ago
Shill bidding is illegal in auctions. They've represented these ad markets as auctions, but it seems like they aren't. You're bidding against some machine designed to make you pay more. Can anyone offer a legit explanation.
- URSpider94 6y ago
  One possibility: Google creates a fully independent subsidiary that bids on AdSense auctions with a goal of turning a profit by reselling the slots they buy. This might make sense if Google sees large inefficiencies in the ad market that are being taken advantage of by third party resellers, at the expense of their customers. It’s not a great look, but it could be done in a way that is aboveboard from a legal standpoint.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    That was the idea, wasn't it? Only they didn't make it independent, but gave it access to data that they didn't give to external bidders, because it would be less efficient (read: less profitable) if it had to act on public information.
throw14082020 6y ago
If ebay did that, they might end up buying a whole lotta crap. This technique is not a money pit when information is available. I'm not clear on the information available to publishers, but I don't think its as clear as ebay. The legality is more subtle
- prepend 6y ago
  Not if they used their proprietary data to bid up but never win auctions. Especially since they know other bidders max price willing. So bidding for max-1 would result in no wins, but lots of extra money. This would make me not use eBay. But there’s really not an alternative for ad markets controlled by Google.
fakedang 6y ago
eBay sellers don't control their marketplace nor do they have access to all the internal data that can influence purchasing decisions. Google controls its ad market fully.
smt1 6y ago
Reminds of wallstreet sell side firms front running their own clients.

xiphias2 6y ago

I think it's the same category as inflating conversions from the point of the advertiser (both are nasty, here it is more easy to prove criminal intent): if you are an ad buyer, make sure that you are adapting your bids and measure everything yourself.