5 ms·

Why does it have to be on them to come up with an alternative instead of... like... acknowledging that monopolies and businesses approaching them are harmful to

Why does it have to be on them to come up with an alternative instead of... like... acknowledging that monopolies and businesses approaching them are harmful to both consumers and businesses?

j33zusjuice 2y ago
Look no further than Google fucking around either third-party cookies every year to demonstrate how overpowered they are. Think whatever you want of the ad industry, but Google flipping on that every year changes the project roadmap for every competitor in the adtech world. And when they flip again mid-year, it can invalidate months of work that teams have done. In the end, all adtech companies are happy to see third-party cookies survive, so no one complains when Google backs out of killing them, but the point is that Google’s decisions change the project roadmaps for every competitor because no one is actually competing with Google. They have entirely too much control over the way the internet runs.
zeroCalories 2y ago
Because if there are alternatives, then it isn't a monopoly. Even if we're restricting ourselves to ads, there are other ad networks, and you can find your own sponsors. The OP is a self-admitted lazy commie and just wants to say "Google bad".
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  > Because if there are alternatives, then it isn't a monopoly. The definition of monopoly is not 100% market share.
  - zeroCalories 2y ago
    Yeah, it's also not having a high market share.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      It seems to me that google has an overpowering presence in the ad market.
- Repulsion9513 2y ago
  > and businesses approaching them > but it isn't a monopoly!!!11
VelesDude 2y ago
This was made more as an example of how much power Google has. While Google is not technically a monopoly, using any alternative is most likely going to hurt your potential reach. Essentially, damned if you do, damned if you don't with no middle ground.

Why does it have to be on them to come up with an alternative instead of... like... acknowledging that monopolies and businesses approaching them are harmful to both consumers and businesses?

j33zusjuice 2y ago

Look no further than Google fucking around either third-party cookies every year to demonstrate how overpowered they are. Think whatever you want of the ad industry, but Google flipping on that every year changes the project roadmap for every competitor in the adtech world. And when they flip again mid-year, it can invalidate months of work that teams have done. In the end, all adtech companies are happy to see third-party cookies survive, so no one complains when Google backs out of killing them, but the point is that Google’s decisions change the project roadmaps for every competitor because no one is actually competing with Google. They have entirely too much control over the way the internet runs.

zeroCalories 2y ago

Because if there are alternatives, then it isn't a monopoly. Even if we're restricting ourselves to ads, there are other ad networks, and you can find your own sponsors. The OP is a self-admitted lazy commie and just wants to say "Google bad".

Dylan16807 2y ago
> Because if there are alternatives, then it isn't a monopoly. The definition of monopoly is not 100% market share.
- zeroCalories 2y ago
  Yeah, it's also not having a high market share.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    It seems to me that google has an overpowering presence in the ad market.
Repulsion9513 2y ago
> and businesses approaching them > but it isn't a monopoly!!!11

VelesDude 2y ago

This was made more as an example of how much power Google has. While Google is not technically a monopoly, using any alternative is most likely going to hurt your potential reach. Essentially, damned if you do, damned if you don't with no middle ground.