9 ms·

> regardless of how weak the merits of the case are. Why would you think the case is weak? Documents recently disclosed by state AGs [1] strongly hinted at wi

by pyrale 5y ago

> regardless of how weak the merits of the case are. Why would you think the case is weak? Documents recently disclosed by state AGs [1] strongly hinted at widespread fraud on AdX, Google's ad exchange. It was the top thread here about a month ago. It's absolutely not surprising that in the light of these revelations, the primary victims of this fraudulent system seek reparation. [1]: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.564903/gov.uscourts.nysd.564903.152.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.56...

hash872 5y ago
According to the Axios article, the lawsuits are about antitrust, not alleged fraud. As I detailed, the reason newspapers are in a precarious financial position is because they previously held a geographic monopoly on classifieds advertising in their cities, but now the Internet (starting with Craigslist) destroyed their monopoly & greatly lowered classified rates by its sheer size. This would have happened, and indeed already did, without Google or Facebook existing
- pyrale 5y ago
  The document made public also stems from antitrust proceedings. I don't know enough about US legal to comment on the way these companies bring their case, though. > now the Internet (starting with Craigslist) destroyed their monopoly & greatly lowered classified rates by its sheer size. This would have happened, and indeed already did, without Google or Facebook existing It is one thing to accept that your position has been challenged by a new technology. But it is another thing that this new techology is monopolized by a single actor, which apparently uses any fraudulent way it can imagine to abuse market participants. While we can agree that newspapers were bound to suffer from new media (they already did when radio and TV appeared), they still deserve protection from fraud and abusive monopoly power.

by pyrale 5y ago

hash872 5y ago

According to the Axios article, the lawsuits are about antitrust, not alleged fraud. As I detailed, the reason newspapers are in a precarious financial position is because they previously held a geographic monopoly on classifieds advertising in their cities, but now the Internet (starting with Craigslist) destroyed their monopoly & greatly lowered classified rates by its sheer size. This would have happened, and indeed already did, without Google or Facebook existing

pyrale 5y ago
The document made public also stems from antitrust proceedings. I don't know enough about US legal to comment on the way these companies bring their case, though. > now the Internet (starting with Craigslist) destroyed their monopoly & greatly lowered classified rates by its sheer size. This would have happened, and indeed already did, without Google or Facebook existing It is one thing to accept that your position has been challenged by a new technology. But it is another thing that this new techology is monopolized by a single actor, which apparently uses any fraudulent way it can imagine to abuse market participants. While we can agree that newspapers were bound to suffer from new media (they already did when radio and TV appeared), they still deserve protection from fraud and abusive monopoly power.