10 ms·

These rulings for a company of Google's stature/importance are always funny to me. How quickly would public opinion change if Google decided to just shut off th

These rulings for a company of Google's stature/importance are always funny to me. How quickly would public opinion change if Google decided to just shut off their service in the EU for a day? Monopolistic breakups that serve the public's best interest are one thing. But how many people actually care that Google might represent a monopoly? Does it actually affect people negatively if the result is a positive online user experience? The world runs on Google and forcing that to change seems like a step backwards at first glance.

bilal4hmed 3y ago
Also imagine breaking one so called monopoly and giving the market away to Apple This will no doubt impact things like android etc.
hfkwer 3y ago
> How quickly would public opinion change if Google decided to just shut off their service in the EU for a day? Always this same old tune. Do you realize how outlandish and naive it is to even suggest that? Google is fighting tooth and nail to make sure that EU laws are laxist. You know why? Because they know that they will have to comply, in the end. The market is just too big to let go of. And I don't think you're making the point you think you're making. If a single company can suspend its services and upheave the whole population's life, then it's a ripe for getting antitrust rulings.
- Fyrezerk 3y ago
  My point, though, is where do we draw the line between antitrust enforcement because it serves the public's best interest, and enforcement that results in a net negative experience?
  - tremon 3y ago
    What makes you think that there's a single sharp line between those?
  - piaste 3y ago
    I don't know the perfect answer to the question "At what point does a company need to be broken up, to protect the liberty of our citizens?", but I would wager it's somewhere on the near side of "when the mere suggestion that the company could shut down for 24 hours would cause unthinkable chaos".
  - CogitoCogito 3y ago
    This same reasoning applies in basically all aspects of law. Someone or some people make a judgement call.
  - bogwog 3y ago
    I think that if a monopoly is necessary to serve the public's interest, as you're suggesting Google is, then it needs to be a public utility, like water or electricity. But I think that's wrong about Google (except maybe for search). None of the services they're offering are unique, it's all tech commodities. They're just entrenched due to decades of anticompetitive behavior and incompetent regulators, and if they were broken up/destroyed, other companies would easily be able to offer the same services at a higher quality, and it would be a net positive to society overall. If Google ads gets broken up, it may be easier for a competitor to actually compete against any Google property. Imagine trying to win a bidding war against Google, much less on their own bidding platform.
Etheryte 3y ago
I don't think either one of those points are true. The result of unregulated Google is most definitely not a positive online experience, it's rampant tracking and hoarding of information, both of which have had very real negative real world consequences. Similarly, the world does not "run on Google", what does that even mean? Gmail is but one email provider out of many. Google search is the largest player in the space, but their technological edge is slimming by the day.
- donatj 3y ago
  > it's rampant tracking and hoarding of information, both of which have had very real negative real world consequences Namely? I can’t imagine any real world consequences that aren’t positives? I am better served for my preferences?
  - Etheryte 3y ago
    Civilians have been bombed in Ukraine based on gathered and clustered geodata. Stalkers have bought their victims' data online and gone to their houses. Foreign intelligence agencies have blackmailed government officials based on their online activities. You can find an absurd number of examples for all of these and more.
  - tremon 3y ago
    There's very little need to imagine anything. Does e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36300410 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36300410 sound like a positive consequence to you?
    - donatj 3y ago
      The government is already listening to all your phone calls and reading all your text messages. There's likely very little in there they don't already have.
      - tremon 3y ago
        You didn't answer the question. Does the government (any government, for that matter) having access to all that information sound like a positive consequence to you?
danmaw 3y ago
This is insane. This is how Standard Oil started. The public is _currently_ getting a good experience, why enforce our laws? Oh no, they're evil now, and the only option, and they're entrenched. How could we have ever foreseen this!
holoduke 3y ago
I would love to see Google leaving Europe. I bet within a few weeks proper maybe even better replacements appear in Europe. Maybe even one of mine :) Google is an ad company. None of its services are critical to maintain a stable society. I would even argue that Europe would be better of without the American tech giants.
- pb7 3y ago
  Europe would return to the dark ages if all American tech companies pulled out overnight. But it is a humorous thought that the only way there can be European alternatives is if there are no American companies to compete against. What is it about Europe that puts it so far behind the US and Asia in innovation? >None of its services are critical to maintain a stable society. Except Android, Maps, Search, Gmail, YouTube, Docs...
  - hnbad 3y ago
    > What is it about Europe that puts it so far behind the US and Asia in innovation? The US barely produces enough illegal drugs for its own market. If all illegal drug manufacturers cut off the supply lines to the US, the illegal drug trade in the US would tank overnight. What is it about the US that puts it so far behind South American countries in innovation?
    - pb7 3y ago
      You're comparing your populace to drug addicts? Ok then. Producing (recreational) drugs isn't innovation. Drugs don't improve your daily life. Absence of them doesn't make life resemble that of the 1900s. They don't increase productivity allowing you to achieve more with your life. And most importantly, the number of people consuming recreational drugs from SA is a rounding error. Every single person in Europe consumes some type of software created by American companies, directly or indirectly.
      - tremon 3y ago
        They're comparing drug producers to peddlers of surveillance capitalism. Surveillance doesn't improve your daily life. Absence of surveillance doesn't make life resemble that of the 1900s. Surveillance doesn't increase productivity. And most importantly, the number of people not subject to surveillance is a rounding error. Every single person in Europe is subject to some type of surveillance crafted by American companies, directly or indirectly.
RobotToaster 3y ago
>How quickly would public opinion change if Google decided to just shut off their service in the EU for a day? It would rather prove the point that they're a monopoly that needs breaking up. It's in google's best interest not to highlight how much power they have with their current monopoly.
_vere 3y ago
Allowing a giant supercorperation to exist is generally not in the interest of the public. Google has been using the incomparable amount of money they have in many ways that do not serve the interests of anyone but themselves. Allowing one company to own the most visited websites, the most used browser, the most used advertising tools + marketplace, half of the mobile market and much more has not really brought us a lot of good. Their search service quality has decreased massively in recent years. Google searches for products are basically useless as all of the results are SEO optimized AI compiled listicles with amazon ref links, you can basically only find relevant info by adding "reddit" to the end of your search. Saying "see how you do without google for a day" is the same as saying "see how you would do without electricity for a day". They have worked very hard to become infrastructure, rather than a service.
- aurareturn 3y ago
  You can say the same about LVMH in the luxury goods market. I don't see Europe trying to break up one of their own companies.
  - piaste 3y ago
    The difference is that LVMH-type products are irrelevant to 98% of the population, and have a highly questionable impact to the top 2%. De Beers had an iconic monopoly on diamonds for over a century, but as far as I know the only time a major government really went after them was for colluding over industrial diamonds, which are actually important. Ensuring that jewelry diamonds and checkered handbags are available at a competitive price would be an awful use of government resources, not least because the inflated price is the point of those products. Luxottica (but only after the 2018 merger with their main competitor) would be a much better example.
    - aurareturn 3y ago
      I knew it someone would reply by saying Google's industry is somehow more important so Europe should regulate them but ignore their own monopolies.
simion314 3y ago
>How quickly would public opinion change if Google decided to just shut off their service in the EU for a day? That is not easy, some Google products are paid or Google offered clear terms , they can't brick my phone and break all the contracts they have with different companies because a petty reason. Even say the free YouTube, I do not pay Google but there are Romanian companies that pay google to put ads in my face, so those are contracts and money involved here. So what could they stop? Some free charity services maybe?
supergirl 3y ago
this is about the ad business not gmail etc. monopolies are not a good thing that’s why we have these laws in the first place. monopolies prevent innovation for example. in the ads case monopoly means 1 company decides what ads are good and what ads are not good which affects society
piaste 3y ago
> How quickly would public opinion change if Google decided to just shut off their service in the EU for a day? Very quickly - against Google. The fact that European citizens have critical business ties to Google (from GSuite to YT partners) is a sword that cuts both ways. It means the EU can't simply shut Google down on a whim; but it also means that Google can't just throw a tantrum and put up a black page saying "we are PROTESTING because your EVIL GOVERNMENT wants to OPPRESS US by asking us to PAY TAXES and ALLOW COMPETITION". Businesses wouldn't stick around to wait for the next time they got randomly locked out of GMail and GDrive. (Not that Google has given the slightest hint of having considered such a move, unlike, say, Meta.) > The world runs on Google and forcing that to change seems like a step backwards at first glance. "Well we have a dominant position, it would be a shame if that were to change" isn't a great defence when you're being specifically accused of abusing your dominant position.
- ornitorrincos 3y ago
  Not to mention why should anyone anywhere trust google at that point.
- pb7 3y ago
  How does Google disallow competition? China managed to overtake the top spot for social media so it's not impossible. Europe just can't build, period.
  - aurareturn 3y ago
    Would Europe still try to regulate Google if one of their companies invented GPT4 and is threatening Google search?
  - M2Ys4U 3y ago
    >Europe just can't build, period. Even if that were true, it's beside the point. If another US company were able to successfully compete without Google's domination of the market then the grounds for enforcement fall away.
thriller 3y ago
There is a rich history of monopolistic practices throughout history that gave rise to antitrust laws. "Does it actually affect people negatively if the result is a positive online user experience" could just as easily be from the playbook of Microsoft, AT&T, De Beers Group... If you had read the EC statement, you would have understood this pertains to AdX, Google Ads, and DFP products whereby Google raises prices and stifles any competition: a good example of a negative online user experience.
olau 3y ago
I think that's why they're trying to go about it in a way that still allows Google to provide the search. As for the benefit, when Google and Facebook jack up the prices of ads, it's probably increasing the prices of many things you buy on the internet. Just as an example, I recently tried to run an ad on Google. There are no competitors in this space at all. It cost me > 1-2 USD per click. 10-15 years ago I also tried to run an ad on Google. When there were no competitors, you could have the ad for something like 0,04 USD per click.
- Fyrezerk 3y ago
  Thanks for the anecdote on ad pricing. That's certainly concerning.
tpm 3y ago
The quality of google's search results going downhill is for me one of the signs that (as all monopols eventually) at some point they stop being a net positive for the society. > The world runs on Google Until it doesn't. No individual and no company is indispensable.
- aurareturn 3y ago
  >Until it doesn't. No individual and no company is indispensable. Agreed. That's why another company or multiple companies will outcompete Google. I don't see a reason Europe needs to break Google up.
viraptor 3y ago
> Does it actually affect people negatively if the result is a positive online user experience? More and more the positive experience is disputable. Both for users (result quality keeps falling) and advertisers (they're the ad exchange that matters). > The world runs on Google and forcing that to change seems like a step backwards at first glance. That's the monopoly part. There's more candidates who will get increased use if Google's search-ad feedback loop goes away. Every time someone too big to fail is finally broken up, we get a small step backwards... ideally we get a big step towards as a result.
myrmidon 3y ago
> How quickly would public opinion change if Google decided to just shut off their service in the EU for a day? Reframed: If you disrupt customers to avoid complying with local law, customers will perceive YOU to be the problem at least as much as local regulations. I believe this is a REALLY dangerous move with very little upside and enormous risk for the company under almost any circumstances, which is probably the reason that companies almost NEVER do this.
- sebzim4500 3y ago
  >Reframed: If you disrupt customers to avoid complying with local law, customers will perceive YOU to be the problem at least as much as local regulations Is this actually true in practice? Anecdotally Italians seeemed pretty annoyed they coudldn't use chatgpt for a while.

bilal4hmed 3y ago

Also imagine breaking one so called monopoly and giving the market away to Apple This will no doubt impact things like android etc.

hfkwer 3y ago

> How quickly would public opinion change if Google decided to just shut off their service in the EU for a day? Always this same old tune. Do you realize how outlandish and naive it is to even suggest that? Google is fighting tooth and nail to make sure that EU laws are laxist. You know why? Because they know that they will have to comply, in the end. The market is just too big to let go of. And I don't think you're making the point you think you're making. If a single company can suspend its services and upheave the whole population's life, then it's a ripe for getting antitrust rulings.

Fyrezerk 3y ago
My point, though, is where do we draw the line between antitrust enforcement because it serves the public's best interest, and enforcement that results in a net negative experience?
- tremon 3y ago
  What makes you think that there's a single sharp line between those?
- piaste 3y ago
  I don't know the perfect answer to the question "At what point does a company need to be broken up, to protect the liberty of our citizens?", but I would wager it's somewhere on the near side of "when the mere suggestion that the company could shut down for 24 hours would cause unthinkable chaos".
- CogitoCogito 3y ago
  This same reasoning applies in basically all aspects of law. Someone or some people make a judgement call.
- bogwog 3y ago
  I think that if a monopoly is necessary to serve the public's interest, as you're suggesting Google is, then it needs to be a public utility, like water or electricity. But I think that's wrong about Google (except maybe for search). None of the services they're offering are unique, it's all tech commodities. They're just entrenched due to decades of anticompetitive behavior and incompetent regulators, and if they were broken up/destroyed, other companies would easily be able to offer the same services at a higher quality, and it would be a net positive to society overall. If Google ads gets broken up, it may be easier for a competitor to actually compete against any Google property. Imagine trying to win a bidding war against Google, much less on their own bidding platform.

Etheryte 3y ago

I don't think either one of those points are true. The result of unregulated Google is most definitely not a positive online experience, it's rampant tracking and hoarding of information, both of which have had very real negative real world consequences. Similarly, the world does not "run on Google", what does that even mean? Gmail is but one email provider out of many. Google search is the largest player in the space, but their technological edge is slimming by the day.

donatj 3y ago
> it's rampant tracking and hoarding of information, both of which have had very real negative real world consequences Namely? I can’t imagine any real world consequences that aren’t positives? I am better served for my preferences?
- Etheryte 3y ago
  Civilians have been bombed in Ukraine based on gathered and clustered geodata. Stalkers have bought their victims' data online and gone to their houses. Foreign intelligence agencies have blackmailed government officials based on their online activities. You can find an absurd number of examples for all of these and more.
- tremon 3y ago
  There's very little need to imagine anything. Does e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36300410 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36300410 sound like a positive consequence to you?
  - donatj 3y ago
    The government is already listening to all your phone calls and reading all your text messages. There's likely very little in there they don't already have.
    - tremon 3y ago
      You didn't answer the question. Does the government (any government, for that matter) having access to all that information sound like a positive consequence to you?

danmaw 3y ago

This is insane. This is how Standard Oil started. The public is _currently_ getting a good experience, why enforce our laws? Oh no, they're evil now, and the only option, and they're entrenched. How could we have ever foreseen this!

holoduke 3y ago

I would love to see Google leaving Europe. I bet within a few weeks proper maybe even better replacements appear in Europe. Maybe even one of mine :) Google is an ad company. None of its services are critical to maintain a stable society. I would even argue that Europe would be better of without the American tech giants.

pb7 3y ago
Europe would return to the dark ages if all American tech companies pulled out overnight. But it is a humorous thought that the only way there can be European alternatives is if there are no American companies to compete against. What is it about Europe that puts it so far behind the US and Asia in innovation? >None of its services are critical to maintain a stable society. Except Android, Maps, Search, Gmail, YouTube, Docs...
- hnbad 3y ago
  > What is it about Europe that puts it so far behind the US and Asia in innovation? The US barely produces enough illegal drugs for its own market. If all illegal drug manufacturers cut off the supply lines to the US, the illegal drug trade in the US would tank overnight. What is it about the US that puts it so far behind South American countries in innovation?
  - pb7 3y ago
    You're comparing your populace to drug addicts? Ok then. Producing (recreational) drugs isn't innovation. Drugs don't improve your daily life. Absence of them doesn't make life resemble that of the 1900s. They don't increase productivity allowing you to achieve more with your life. And most importantly, the number of people consuming recreational drugs from SA is a rounding error. Every single person in Europe consumes some type of software created by American companies, directly or indirectly.
    - tremon 3y ago
      They're comparing drug producers to peddlers of surveillance capitalism. Surveillance doesn't improve your daily life. Absence of surveillance doesn't make life resemble that of the 1900s. Surveillance doesn't increase productivity. And most importantly, the number of people not subject to surveillance is a rounding error. Every single person in Europe is subject to some type of surveillance crafted by American companies, directly or indirectly.

RobotToaster 3y ago

>How quickly would public opinion change if Google decided to just shut off their service in the EU for a day? It would rather prove the point that they're a monopoly that needs breaking up. It's in google's best interest not to highlight how much power they have with their current monopoly.

_vere 3y ago

Allowing a giant supercorperation to exist is generally not in the interest of the public. Google has been using the incomparable amount of money they have in many ways that do not serve the interests of anyone but themselves. Allowing one company to own the most visited websites, the most used browser, the most used advertising tools + marketplace, half of the mobile market and much more has not really brought us a lot of good. Their search service quality has decreased massively in recent years. Google searches for products are basically useless as all of the results are SEO optimized AI compiled listicles with amazon ref links, you can basically only find relevant info by adding "reddit" to the end of your search. Saying "see how you do without google for a day" is the same as saying "see how you would do without electricity for a day". They have worked very hard to become infrastructure, rather than a service.

aurareturn 3y ago
You can say the same about LVMH in the luxury goods market. I don't see Europe trying to break up one of their own companies.
- piaste 3y ago
  The difference is that LVMH-type products are irrelevant to 98% of the population, and have a highly questionable impact to the top 2%. De Beers had an iconic monopoly on diamonds for over a century, but as far as I know the only time a major government really went after them was for colluding over industrial diamonds, which are actually important. Ensuring that jewelry diamonds and checkered handbags are available at a competitive price would be an awful use of government resources, not least because the inflated price is the point of those products. Luxottica (but only after the 2018 merger with their main competitor) would be a much better example.
  - aurareturn 3y ago
    I knew it someone would reply by saying Google's industry is somehow more important so Europe should regulate them but ignore their own monopolies.

simion314 3y ago

>How quickly would public opinion change if Google decided to just shut off their service in the EU for a day? That is not easy, some Google products are paid or Google offered clear terms , they can't brick my phone and break all the contracts they have with different companies because a petty reason. Even say the free YouTube, I do not pay Google but there are Romanian companies that pay google to put ads in my face, so those are contracts and money involved here. So what could they stop? Some free charity services maybe?

supergirl 3y ago

this is about the ad business not gmail etc. monopolies are not a good thing that’s why we have these laws in the first place. monopolies prevent innovation for example. in the ads case monopoly means 1 company decides what ads are good and what ads are not good which affects society

piaste 3y ago

> How quickly would public opinion change if Google decided to just shut off their service in the EU for a day? Very quickly - against Google. The fact that European citizens have critical business ties to Google (from GSuite to YT partners) is a sword that cuts both ways. It means the EU can't simply shut Google down on a whim; but it also means that Google can't just throw a tantrum and put up a black page saying "we are PROTESTING because your EVIL GOVERNMENT wants to OPPRESS US by asking us to PAY TAXES and ALLOW COMPETITION". Businesses wouldn't stick around to wait for the next time they got randomly locked out of GMail and GDrive. (Not that Google has given the slightest hint of having considered such a move, unlike, say, Meta.) > The world runs on Google and forcing that to change seems like a step backwards at first glance. "Well we have a dominant position, it would be a shame if that were to change" isn't a great defence when you're being specifically accused of abusing your dominant position.

ornitorrincos 3y ago
Not to mention why should anyone anywhere trust google at that point.
pb7 3y ago
How does Google disallow competition? China managed to overtake the top spot for social media so it's not impossible. Europe just can't build, period.
- aurareturn 3y ago
  Would Europe still try to regulate Google if one of their companies invented GPT4 and is threatening Google search?
- M2Ys4U 3y ago
  >Europe just can't build, period. Even if that were true, it's beside the point. If another US company were able to successfully compete without Google's domination of the market then the grounds for enforcement fall away.

thriller 3y ago

There is a rich history of monopolistic practices throughout history that gave rise to antitrust laws. "Does it actually affect people negatively if the result is a positive online user experience" could just as easily be from the playbook of Microsoft, AT&T, De Beers Group... If you had read the EC statement, you would have understood this pertains to AdX, Google Ads, and DFP products whereby Google raises prices and stifles any competition: a good example of a negative online user experience.

olau 3y ago

I think that's why they're trying to go about it in a way that still allows Google to provide the search. As for the benefit, when Google and Facebook jack up the prices of ads, it's probably increasing the prices of many things you buy on the internet. Just as an example, I recently tried to run an ad on Google. There are no competitors in this space at all. It cost me > 1-2 USD per click. 10-15 years ago I also tried to run an ad on Google. When there were no competitors, you could have the ad for something like 0,04 USD per click.

Fyrezerk 3y ago
Thanks for the anecdote on ad pricing. That's certainly concerning.

tpm 3y ago

The quality of google's search results going downhill is for me one of the signs that (as all monopols eventually) at some point they stop being a net positive for the society. > The world runs on Google Until it doesn't. No individual and no company is indispensable.

aurareturn 3y ago
>Until it doesn't. No individual and no company is indispensable. Agreed. That's why another company or multiple companies will outcompete Google. I don't see a reason Europe needs to break Google up.

viraptor 3y ago

> Does it actually affect people negatively if the result is a positive online user experience? More and more the positive experience is disputable. Both for users (result quality keeps falling) and advertisers (they're the ad exchange that matters). > The world runs on Google and forcing that to change seems like a step backwards at first glance. That's the monopoly part. There's more candidates who will get increased use if Google's search-ad feedback loop goes away. Every time someone too big to fail is finally broken up, we get a small step backwards... ideally we get a big step towards as a result.

myrmidon 3y ago

> How quickly would public opinion change if Google decided to just shut off their service in the EU for a day? Reframed: If you disrupt customers to avoid complying with local law, customers will perceive YOU to be the problem at least as much as local regulations. I believe this is a REALLY dangerous move with very little upside and enormous risk for the company under almost any circumstances, which is probably the reason that companies almost NEVER do this.

sebzim4500 3y ago
>Reframed: If you disrupt customers to avoid complying with local law, customers will perceive YOU to be the problem at least as much as local regulations Is this actually true in practice? Anecdotally Italians seeemed pretty annoyed they coudldn't use chatgpt for a while.