5 ms·
This is a frank discussion about "search advertising", probably from someone at google. If it was not already clear to anyone, this explains it clearly: "... w
by talkingtab 3y ago
This is a frank discussion about "search advertising", probably from someone at google. If it was not already clear to anyone, this explains it clearly:
"... we could mostly ignore the demand side of the equation (users and queries) ..."
In other words the people who use google search and what they want to know can mostly be ignored.
Instead the focus is on "advertisers" where advertiser is a euphemism for anyone who wants to target people for any purpose. This purpose can and does include disrupting our social order, promoting extremist causes, selling products that are unfit for use or products that are prohibitively expensive.
In case you have not been paying attention, welcome to clickbaitnet.
- jcranmer 3y agohttps://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/09/google-exec-said-users-get-hooked-on-search-engine-like-cigarettes-or-drugs/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/09/google-exec-said... has more discussion of the context. > probably from someone at google. Specifically, it's "meeting notes that Google’s vice president for finance, Michael Roszak, created for a course on communications."
- jppittma 3y agoSeems to me like there are two disjointed teams worrying about two different things. Search org is worried about daily active users and user experience, and ads is worried about monetizing search. The reason finance doesn't have to worry about demand is because search org is worrying about it.
- eastbound 3y agoDid that person work on the Youtube search? You can search for any topic and videos from your feed keep appearing in the search results, no matter how unrelated. Google’s lawyers should make the case that they can’t be trialled for monopoly on the search, because it’s one aspect that they don’t even do anymore.
- notacoward 3y agoWhat's missing is that they've exhibited monopolistic behavior toward their "supply" side (advertisers) as well. "Tear the economics textbook in half" is a weird way to say "follow exactly what the book says regarding monopolies".
- sonotathrowaway 3y agoMonopsonistic*
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- notacoward 3y agoYou say potato, I say pedant.
- astrange 3y agoThey're literally opposite concepts with opposite effects. Which is why it doesn't make much sense to call a middleman either one, when they're both.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- notacoward 3y ago"They're opposite" is the most incorrect statement in this thread. Yes, there is a difference, but the effects can be similar. Either way, market participants are denied a fair price because of their counterparty's dominance. This very case demonstrates it, as does Amazon's. That's why our laws treat them similarly, even using the word "monopoly" to mean both ... as do professional economists when both are under discussion. This "I know a word you don't know" game is tiresome, especially when people do know the words (and apparently better than you).
- voisin 3y agoThere’s nothing surprising here. We’ve known for two decades that Google and others treat users as the product being sold to their actual customers - the advertisers. We need to stop being shocked that the companies themselves, addicted to ad revenue, did some truly despicable things and most of the people at them (yes, many on this forum) actively enabled these behaviours and acted as apologists for them. Seriously, fuck Google and fuck Meta and if your company is ad driven then it’s on you too.
- matheusmoreira 3y agoAd blocking is a moral imperative. We should all do what we can to drive these advertiser profits to as close to zero as humanly possible. This will fix the web.
- paulryanrogers 3y agoOr boycott them entirely