5 ms·

> We will (barely) survive That a single company, in an unrelated market (ads), merely refusing to do business with you, can almost bankrupt you, means it's ti

> We will (barely) survive That a single company, in an unrelated market (ads), merely refusing to do business with you, can almost bankrupt you, means it's time for trust-busting. No single company should have such power.

courgette 4y ago
In this particular case, it seems easier said than done? OP did put eggs in different basquet ( social medias ) but Google will be Google right? What would be the alternative.
- voltaireodactyl 4y ago
  Anti-Trust Legislation.
  - courgette 4y ago
    I’m surprised to see that sentiment echoed several times on HN. I’m all about it.
- lprib 4y ago
  > What would be the alternative That's the point, there is not alternative at the moment. Breaking up monopolies allows competition and an alternative provider when something like this happens.
  - courgette 4y ago
    Gotcha, yes. Or a least regulate the said monopoly so they provide clear and open guidelines in regard to their policies.
- arlcode 4y ago
  Trust busting or restricting Googles ability to conduct their business as they see fit. Not something needed in a functioning market but if a company decides and manages to dominate a certain market, the rules change one way or another. PS: I'm deliberately avoiding the word "monopoly". It's not required in most jurisdictions.
carlosjobim 4y ago
If it wasn't for Google, millions of businesses would never have had a chance to exist, because they didn't have anywhere near the initial budget or right political connections to reach their customers through traditional media. It is a terrible power they have in their hands, but it is leagues better than what was before. But I think it is outrageous how they mistreat important customers like OP and let some petty employee who probably has never done anything useful in their life destroy the livelihood of other people just out of spite.
- nhchris 4y ago
  If it wasn't for Google, it would be someone else delivering ads online. Gratitude for their near-complete takeover of that market is severely misplaced.
  - carlosjobim 4y ago
    What is hindering someone else from competing with Google on search? Google is awful when it comes to things such as censorship and free speech, but it is a boon to business competition, compared to how things where before.
    - reilly3000 4y ago
      Search is not new, nor is directory advertising. Google didn’t bring anything to the table in the digital ad world until post-YouTube and Doubleclick acquisition. Overture, aka Yahoo search ads created the ecosystem that Google ultimately cloned for their business model. The only thing that Google really brought value was simple UX and better-than-average search results thanks to PageRank and such. Every B2C service they provide outside of search and gmail came from acquisitions. Google was and always will be fundamentally predisposed to anticompetitive behavior. Their acquisition and slaughter of world-changing technology and holding captive the attention of a generation or more of top talent has cost the world Trillions in opportunity costs IMHO. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/04/google-influence-hiring-government-officials https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/04/google-in... Ya that’s good for competition right? Regulatory capture? Google has done nothing particularly special to create opportunities for very small businesses online and their deliberate, persistent efforts to maintain a faceless veneer, through which meaning for customer support, for those businesses is impossible. I had a rather business that was an AdWords certified partner and I know very deeply how many customers they have had OP’s experience. At this point, it is more important for them to maintain an operation that can ostensibly thrive without humans in the loop than to make money selling ads. That is their strategy, a choice that could have been reversed any time in the past 20 years. See how even their own employees are completely unable to help customers. I think it’s dogshit stance and they should be punished throughly in the marketplace for it. That’s just impossible now due to their size.

courgette 4y ago

In this particular case, it seems easier said than done? OP did put eggs in different basquet ( social medias ) but Google will be Google right? What would be the alternative.

voltaireodactyl 4y ago
Anti-Trust Legislation.
- courgette 4y ago
  I’m surprised to see that sentiment echoed several times on HN. I’m all about it.
lprib 4y ago
> What would be the alternative That's the point, there is not alternative at the moment. Breaking up monopolies allows competition and an alternative provider when something like this happens.
- courgette 4y ago
  Gotcha, yes. Or a least regulate the said monopoly so they provide clear and open guidelines in regard to their policies.
arlcode 4y ago
Trust busting or restricting Googles ability to conduct their business as they see fit. Not something needed in a functioning market but if a company decides and manages to dominate a certain market, the rules change one way or another. PS: I'm deliberately avoiding the word "monopoly". It's not required in most jurisdictions.

carlosjobim 4y ago

If it wasn't for Google, millions of businesses would never have had a chance to exist, because they didn't have anywhere near the initial budget or right political connections to reach their customers through traditional media. It is a terrible power they have in their hands, but it is leagues better than what was before. But I think it is outrageous how they mistreat important customers like OP and let some petty employee who probably has never done anything useful in their life destroy the livelihood of other people just out of spite.

nhchris 4y ago
If it wasn't for Google, it would be someone else delivering ads online. Gratitude for their near-complete takeover of that market is severely misplaced.
- carlosjobim 4y ago
  What is hindering someone else from competing with Google on search? Google is awful when it comes to things such as censorship and free speech, but it is a boon to business competition, compared to how things where before.
  - reilly3000 4y ago
    Search is not new, nor is directory advertising. Google didn’t bring anything to the table in the digital ad world until post-YouTube and Doubleclick acquisition. Overture, aka Yahoo search ads created the ecosystem that Google ultimately cloned for their business model. The only thing that Google really brought value was simple UX and better-than-average search results thanks to PageRank and such. Every B2C service they provide outside of search and gmail came from acquisitions. Google was and always will be fundamentally predisposed to anticompetitive behavior. Their acquisition and slaughter of world-changing technology and holding captive the attention of a generation or more of top talent has cost the world Trillions in opportunity costs IMHO. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/04/google-influence-hiring-government-officials https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/04/google-in... Ya that’s good for competition right? Regulatory capture? Google has done nothing particularly special to create opportunities for very small businesses online and their deliberate, persistent efforts to maintain a faceless veneer, through which meaning for customer support, for those businesses is impossible. I had a rather business that was an AdWords certified partner and I know very deeply how many customers they have had OP’s experience. At this point, it is more important for them to maintain an operation that can ostensibly thrive without humans in the loop than to make money selling ads. That is their strategy, a choice that could have been reversed any time in the past 20 years. See how even their own employees are completely unable to help customers. I think it’s dogshit stance and they should be punished throughly in the marketplace for it. That’s just impossible now due to their size.