6 ms·

People are being awfully credulous of two sentence fragments quoted in an editorial paragraph. Much of this could certainly be true but my bullshit meter is goi

People are being awfully credulous of two sentence fragments quoted in an editorial paragraph. Much of this could certainly be true but my bullshit meter is going off on the level of narrative they're reconstructing in all the non-quoted portions. I dislike AMP because the UX is bad and Google strong armed it in the news carousel anyways instead of focusing on performance for all sites, but this would be a lot more convincing with the source emails entered into the record. edit: and this is just talking about ad content, right? Unless somehow a publisher made their entire page blocked until the page's ads load, throttling the load of ads would just make the ads load slower. And from what cletus quotes in another comment: > To respond to the threat of header bidding, Google created Accelerated Mobile Pages (“AMP”), a framework for developing mobile web pages, and made AMP essentially incompatible with JavaScript and header bidding. Google then used its power in the search market to effectively force publishers into using AMP. Is the claim that ads in AMP pages don't run javascript or do header bidding and so are "fast", but javascript and header bidding isn't inherently slow so Google could have made them faster (and/or not intentionally throttled)? I've never worked much with ads so maybe someone with knowledge of header bidding can comment.

windexh8er 5y ago
Bullshit meter? It seems to me this is yet another validation that Google is an ad sales company hell bent on preventing competition, controlling the market and lying to end users and integrators. All of these pieces are adding up - what was conjecture is finally being validated and I, personally, believe that Google is not in it for the good of the customer, but are only in it for a profit. Death to Google by thousands of cuts like this? Game on. I've said it before, sales organizations only base performance on profit. It is the toxin that defines all of this misbehaviour. Nobody "thinks" they're doing anything wrong because it's talked about as benefiting the shareholder. Google isn't immune to this.
- magicalist 5y ago
  > It seems to me this is yet another validation That's just what I mean. There's a tiny amount of validation and a lot of rhetoric. It would be preferable to be able to see the actual sources they're quoting from.
  - unknownOrigin 5y ago
    It would be preferable if people paid by Google wouldn't astroturf this site every time Google is caught doing something dirty.
    - magicalist 5y ago
      Nope, but also please don't try to shut down conversation this way.
    - kylevedder 5y ago
      That's a pretty bad faith reply. I'm not paid by Google to astroturf (feel free to look at my account) and I agree with magicalist: I want to see primary sources before drawing any significant conclusions.
    - dang 5y ago
      You can't attack others like this here. We ban accounts that post flamewar comments, such as this one and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28733439 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28733439. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. I appreciate and share your desire to protect the integrity of the site but we need to do it in a way that doesn't do even more damage.
  - windexh8er 5y ago
    Just because the floodgates haven't opened with all of the insight you may want doesn't mean it's not valid - re: "bullshit meter". Google has an army of the best in legal and part of their play is limiting this information from ever being seen. I'm curious, what would be enough validation to pass your sniff test? And are you saying you think this is being overblown?
    - magicalist 5y ago
      > I'm curious, what would be enough validation to pass your sniff test? From my first post: > but this would be a lot more convincing with the source emails entered into the record :)
- hoffs 5y ago
  Validation? What else you want validated as I can whip up a doc with some claims about things without source/proof too.
tyingq 5y ago
>"People are being awfully credulous of two sentence fragments quoted in an editorial paragraph." The pdf that this page links to includes much more than two sentence fragments on the topic.
- magicalist 5y ago
  But not the documents these quotes come from, as far as I can tell.
  - tyingq 5y ago
    I agree, but this seems pretty typical for an initial filing. They don't typically show all their cards. So snippets like: >Internally, Google employees grappled with “how to [publicly] justify [Google] making something slower.” Could be more, or less interesting, when the actual source document is published. There's some more detail in a highly redacted document here: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/20201216%20COMPLAINT_REDACTED.pdf https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/ima... "In Google’s words, the [redacted] program [redacted]. Next, Google tried to come up with other creative ways to shut out competition from exchanges in header bidding. During one internal debate, a Google employee proposed a [redacted]. A second employee captured Google’s ultimate aim of destroying header bidding altogether, noting in response that [redacted]"
    - LordDragonfang 5y ago
      >Or more accurately, the analogy would be if [redacted] were a monopoly financial broker and owned the [redacted] which was a monopoly stock exchange. Can someone who has a better understand of legal proceedings explain what purpose these redactions serve?
    - magicalist 5y ago
      > A second employee captured Google’s ultimate aim of destroying header bidding altogether, noting in response that [redacted] So from a probably naive view, getting rid of header bidding seems like it would be faster, not slower. Is the assertion being made that it isn't faster and it just so happens to also enrich the ad network?
ricketycricket 5y ago
> People are being awfully credulous of two sentence fragments quoted in an editorial paragraph. Much of this could certainly be true but my bullshit meter is going off on the level of narrative they're reconstructing in all the non-quoted portions. This is not an editorial document, it’s a legal complaint by the Attorneys General of 17 U.S. states and commonwealths demanding a jury trial (among other things). The allegations are unproven at this point. The demanded trial process (discovery, examination, etc.) is what will provide the evidence. One way or another though, we’re going to see if all of these claims are true. It just will take some time.
- magicalist 5y ago
  > This is not an editorial document, it’s a legal complaint by the Attorneys General It's definitely both, they know their audience is not limited to the court. Performative filings by attorneys general happen all the time, and being able to set the narrative and put the other party on the defensive is absolutely part of this process, for good or bad.
- LordDragonfang 5y ago
  >This is not an editorial document, it’s a legal complaint by the Attorneys General of 17 U.S. states and commonwealths demanding a jury trial (among other things). While I agree that Google is anticompetitive, I don't think that specific detail gives as much weight as you think it does (or indeed should). The courts have had a notoriously bad history with understanding tech, and being part of a formal legal process is only weak evidence that a complaint has merit.
  - kbenson 5y ago
    I don't think that was necessarily meant to convey weight towards a position of belief, but instead to just clarify the situation. They immediately followed up with "the allegations are unproven" and "we'll eventually see".

windexh8er 5y ago

Bullshit meter? It seems to me this is yet another validation that Google is an ad sales company hell bent on preventing competition, controlling the market and lying to end users and integrators. All of these pieces are adding up - what was conjecture is finally being validated and I, personally, believe that Google is not in it for the good of the customer, but are only in it for a profit. Death to Google by thousands of cuts like this? Game on. I've said it before, sales organizations only base performance on profit. It is the toxin that defines all of this misbehaviour. Nobody "thinks" they're doing anything wrong because it's talked about as benefiting the shareholder. Google isn't immune to this.

magicalist 5y ago
> It seems to me this is yet another validation That's just what I mean. There's a tiny amount of validation and a lot of rhetoric. It would be preferable to be able to see the actual sources they're quoting from.
- unknownOrigin 5y ago
  It would be preferable if people paid by Google wouldn't astroturf this site every time Google is caught doing something dirty.
  - magicalist 5y ago
    Nope, but also please don't try to shut down conversation this way.
  - kylevedder 5y ago
    That's a pretty bad faith reply. I'm not paid by Google to astroturf (feel free to look at my account) and I agree with magicalist: I want to see primary sources before drawing any significant conclusions.
  - dang 5y ago
    You can't attack others like this here. We ban accounts that post flamewar comments, such as this one and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28733439 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28733439. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. I appreciate and share your desire to protect the integrity of the site but we need to do it in a way that doesn't do even more damage.
- windexh8er 5y ago
  Just because the floodgates haven't opened with all of the insight you may want doesn't mean it's not valid - re: "bullshit meter". Google has an army of the best in legal and part of their play is limiting this information from ever being seen. I'm curious, what would be enough validation to pass your sniff test? And are you saying you think this is being overblown?
  - magicalist 5y ago
    > I'm curious, what would be enough validation to pass your sniff test? From my first post: > but this would be a lot more convincing with the source emails entered into the record :)
hoffs 5y ago
Validation? What else you want validated as I can whip up a doc with some claims about things without source/proof too.

tyingq 5y ago

>"People are being awfully credulous of two sentence fragments quoted in an editorial paragraph." The pdf that this page links to includes much more than two sentence fragments on the topic.

magicalist 5y ago
But not the documents these quotes come from, as far as I can tell.
- tyingq 5y ago
  I agree, but this seems pretty typical for an initial filing. They don't typically show all their cards. So snippets like: >Internally, Google employees grappled with “how to [publicly] justify [Google] making something slower.” Could be more, or less interesting, when the actual source document is published. There's some more detail in a highly redacted document here: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/20201216%20COMPLAINT_REDACTED.pdf https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/ima... "In Google’s words, the [redacted] program [redacted]. Next, Google tried to come up with other creative ways to shut out competition from exchanges in header bidding. During one internal debate, a Google employee proposed a [redacted]. A second employee captured Google’s ultimate aim of destroying header bidding altogether, noting in response that [redacted]"
  - LordDragonfang 5y ago
    >Or more accurately, the analogy would be if [redacted] were a monopoly financial broker and owned the [redacted] which was a monopoly stock exchange. Can someone who has a better understand of legal proceedings explain what purpose these redactions serve?
  - magicalist 5y ago
    > A second employee captured Google’s ultimate aim of destroying header bidding altogether, noting in response that [redacted] So from a probably naive view, getting rid of header bidding seems like it would be faster, not slower. Is the assertion being made that it isn't faster and it just so happens to also enrich the ad network?

ricketycricket 5y ago

> People are being awfully credulous of two sentence fragments quoted in an editorial paragraph. Much of this could certainly be true but my bullshit meter is going off on the level of narrative they're reconstructing in all the non-quoted portions. This is not an editorial document, it’s a legal complaint by the Attorneys General of 17 U.S. states and commonwealths demanding a jury trial (among other things). The allegations are unproven at this point. The demanded trial process (discovery, examination, etc.) is what will provide the evidence. One way or another though, we’re going to see if all of these claims are true. It just will take some time.

magicalist 5y ago
> This is not an editorial document, it’s a legal complaint by the Attorneys General It's definitely both, they know their audience is not limited to the court. Performative filings by attorneys general happen all the time, and being able to set the narrative and put the other party on the defensive is absolutely part of this process, for good or bad.
LordDragonfang 5y ago
>This is not an editorial document, it’s a legal complaint by the Attorneys General of 17 U.S. states and commonwealths demanding a jury trial (among other things). While I agree that Google is anticompetitive, I don't think that specific detail gives as much weight as you think it does (or indeed should). The courts have had a notoriously bad history with understanding tech, and being part of a formal legal process is only weak evidence that a complaint has merit.
- kbenson 5y ago
  I don't think that was necessarily meant to convey weight towards a position of belief, but instead to just clarify the situation. They immediately followed up with "the allegations are unproven" and "we'll eventually see".