4 ms·

Remove the word monopoly from this and there is nothing wrong with it. It's standard and smart business practice to create synergies among your business units i

by 22289d 3y ago

Remove the word monopoly from this and there is nothing wrong with it. It's standard and smart business practice to create synergies among your business units in this way. It's one of the key reasons companies acquire other companies. While I would agree that Google doing it may be detrimental to consumers, it's not suddenly nefarious when they do it. They're just doing what any company would do. It's not their job to look out for the health of the market or what's best for consumers. That's the governments job. It's Google's job to look out for Google and their shareholders.

pixl97 3y ago
>it can be detrimental to consumers, it's not suddenly nefarious when they do it. That is more of a US than an EU point of view. US is more "If you're not a monopoly, feel free to fuck the customer" EU is more "Consumers have rights, quite being a dick".
- 22289d 3y ago
  I'm not familiar with EU law but as a US consumer, I don't think that's fair. They're far from perfect but they try. We have entire agencies that exist to protect consumers in specific areas. The SEC being a famous one. Their entire mission is to protect investors from getting scammed. That's why congress created and funds the SEC. That's why those thousands of people go to work every day. To protect us from getting scammed. Awesome. I'm thankful for it. The context here is one particular type of fucking over the customer. The ways in which monopolies can abuse their power. Within that one specific type, what you said is probably accurate.
  - jeffbee 3y ago
    Indeed, the GP's description of the situation is backwards. In the US, harming consumers is the surest way to lose an antitrust case. In the EU, they use regulatory powers to protect competitors, even when it harms consumers.
  - deciplex 3y ago
    Google's customer service is famously awful.
    - ggm 3y ago
      Only if you don't pay for it. if you pay for it, its average to normal. (I pay for 1 and I get what I pay for. People respond when I ask for help)
      - deciplex 3y ago
        I'd gladly pay ~$100 or so not to be treated like a criminal by Google Ads support, but when I'm already (or was) paying ~$2000/month I'd expect someone to at least hear me out when I suggest their algo might be fucked up. Alas, they won't let me pay for support in the first place.
  - solardev 3y ago
    The SEC protects investors, not end customers/users. It's different. The EU has a bunch of consumer rights that apply to everyday people regardless of wealth. The US has very little of that, aside from the occasional recall. Instead, we have a predatory legal system that thrives on lawsuits instead of regulations.
    - 22289d 3y ago
      Yes I forgot, you can't make analogies or even provide examples on the interest, because no two things are ever exactly alike. My apologies. My point stands, however.
      - solardev 3y ago
        It's not really an analogy though. The US is really behind in consumer rights compared to the EU. The SEC's existence doesn't change that. It's like saying we have a EPA and a ATF. But those aren't consumer protection agencies either.
        22289d 3y ago
        So apologizing wasn't enough. What would you like for me to show my genuine remorse for providing an example you don't approve of?
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        So either you're being sarcastic about "genuine" and your entire post here is just to be obnoxious... Or you're the worst apologizer in the world, jesus christ, go read a tutorial or something. And no your point doesn't stand. The defensiveness about it being exactly alike would matter if it was an analogy, but you did not make an analogy. Non-analogies do have to match, and that is not an unreasonable standard.
        22289d 3y ago
        I shouldn't need to apologize for making an example. How about you quit being such a pedant. An example is not supposed to be exactly the same in every way. It doesn't even need to be mostly the same. It can be only kinda sorta maybe related and that's ok. It's just an example. Somehow analogies an examples came to mean perfect clones. That's not what they are.
- patmorgan23 3y ago
  Except for the last 20 years where we've had basically zero anti-trust enforcement. Lina Kahn biden's FTC chair is actually taking a crack at it again and has filed several major anti-trust suits against several big tech companies this month.
matheusmoreira 3y ago
> it may be detrimental to consumers, it's not suddenly nefarious when they do it It absolutely is. The whole point of these corporations is to serve us with good products and services. That's why society allows them to exist at all. That they get to turn a profit is merely a side effect meant to incentivize them. If whatever it is they're doing is not good for us, it absolutely should be prohibited. We couldn't care less how much money they're making or losing, it's literally not our problem.
- 22289d 3y ago
  "they're not doing anything nefarious" and "what they are doing should be prohibited" are not mutually exclusive. You aren't disagreeing with me. They're in anti-trust proceedings. That is the proper way to handle any harm they're doing. And...as I said...that doesn't mean they are doing anything nefarious. They're conducting business as any other business would, they just happen to be really good at it. If the regulators want to step in, they can. It's the system working as intended.

by 22289d 3y ago

pixl97 3y ago

>it can be detrimental to consumers, it's not suddenly nefarious when they do it. That is more of a US than an EU point of view. US is more "If you're not a monopoly, feel free to fuck the customer" EU is more "Consumers have rights, quite being a dick".

22289d 3y ago
I'm not familiar with EU law but as a US consumer, I don't think that's fair. They're far from perfect but they try. We have entire agencies that exist to protect consumers in specific areas. The SEC being a famous one. Their entire mission is to protect investors from getting scammed. That's why congress created and funds the SEC. That's why those thousands of people go to work every day. To protect us from getting scammed. Awesome. I'm thankful for it. The context here is one particular type of fucking over the customer. The ways in which monopolies can abuse their power. Within that one specific type, what you said is probably accurate.
- jeffbee 3y ago
  Indeed, the GP's description of the situation is backwards. In the US, harming consumers is the surest way to lose an antitrust case. In the EU, they use regulatory powers to protect competitors, even when it harms consumers.
- deciplex 3y ago
  Google's customer service is famously awful.
  - ggm 3y ago
    Only if you don't pay for it. if you pay for it, its average to normal. (I pay for 1 and I get what I pay for. People respond when I ask for help)
    - deciplex 3y ago
      I'd gladly pay ~$100 or so not to be treated like a criminal by Google Ads support, but when I'm already (or was) paying ~$2000/month I'd expect someone to at least hear me out when I suggest their algo might be fucked up. Alas, they won't let me pay for support in the first place.
- solardev 3y ago
  The SEC protects investors, not end customers/users. It's different. The EU has a bunch of consumer rights that apply to everyday people regardless of wealth. The US has very little of that, aside from the occasional recall. Instead, we have a predatory legal system that thrives on lawsuits instead of regulations.
  - 22289d 3y ago
    Yes I forgot, you can't make analogies or even provide examples on the interest, because no two things are ever exactly alike. My apologies. My point stands, however.
    - solardev 3y ago
      It's not really an analogy though. The US is really behind in consumer rights compared to the EU. The SEC's existence doesn't change that. It's like saying we have a EPA and a ATF. But those aren't consumer protection agencies either.
      - 22289d 3y ago
        So apologizing wasn't enough. What would you like for me to show my genuine remorse for providing an example you don't approve of?
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        So either you're being sarcastic about "genuine" and your entire post here is just to be obnoxious... Or you're the worst apologizer in the world, jesus christ, go read a tutorial or something. And no your point doesn't stand. The defensiveness about it being exactly alike would matter if it was an analogy, but you did not make an analogy. Non-analogies do have to match, and that is not an unreasonable standard.
        22289d 3y ago
        I shouldn't need to apologize for making an example. How about you quit being such a pedant. An example is not supposed to be exactly the same in every way. It doesn't even need to be mostly the same. It can be only kinda sorta maybe related and that's ok. It's just an example. Somehow analogies an examples came to mean perfect clones. That's not what they are.
patmorgan23 3y ago
Except for the last 20 years where we've had basically zero anti-trust enforcement. Lina Kahn biden's FTC chair is actually taking a crack at it again and has filed several major anti-trust suits against several big tech companies this month.

matheusmoreira 3y ago

> it may be detrimental to consumers, it's not suddenly nefarious when they do it It absolutely is. The whole point of these corporations is to serve us with good products and services. That's why society allows them to exist at all. That they get to turn a profit is merely a side effect meant to incentivize them. If whatever it is they're doing is not good for us, it absolutely should be prohibited. We couldn't care less how much money they're making or losing, it's literally not our problem.

22289d 3y ago
"they're not doing anything nefarious" and "what they are doing should be prohibited" are not mutually exclusive. You aren't disagreeing with me. They're in anti-trust proceedings. That is the proper way to handle any harm they're doing. And...as I said...that doesn't mean they are doing anything nefarious. They're conducting business as any other business would, they just happen to be really good at it. If the regulators want to step in, they can. It's the system working as intended.