4 ms·

So your solution is for YT/Google/Meta to check the code, operations, finances, and business models of every advertiser that comes to them? Even if YT/Google/Me

So your solution is for YT/Google/Meta to check the code, operations, finances, and business models of every advertiser that comes to them? Even if YT/Google/Meta could do this at scale, do you want them to have that power?

segasaturn 2y ago
If Google/Meta/Youtube want to be multi-trillion dollar monopolies that have invaded every aspect of our lives then there should be some very basic corporate responsibility that comes with that power, even if its difficult and maybe even costs them a little bit of money. Lately it seems like the phrase has been inverted to "with great power comes less responsibility". If your small local TV station ran ads for cocaine and synthetic opioids nobody would be making these kinds of excuses.
- linotype 2y ago
  Aside from YouTube, there’s an alternative for all of the services provided by Google and Meta. Fastmail, X (Twitter), a billion different messenger apps, Microsoft apps for office applications, etc etc.
  - rurp 2y ago
    A company doesn't need a literal 100% market share to have monopolistic power. Products like Google Search or Gmail that dominate their respective markets count.
  - mrguyorama 2y ago
    Google and Facebook are ads companies. Everything they build, deploy, do, share, sell, and buy is about selling ads. Youtube is a platform to sell ads. Gmail is a platform to collect data to sell ads. Facebook is a platform to collect data to sell ads on Facebook. Both companies have "analytics" products that exist to collect more data for ads. What competition is there in the Ad space for internet advertising?
    - linotype 2y ago
      I agree there really isn’t any for ads, it’s pretty much a duopoly now (though TikTok and Amazon are growing). I was more referring to consumer products like email and office suites.
- datavirtue 2y ago
  Yeah, all the socialized losses from business have fallen on governments and citizens to pay for it, and figure out how to do it. Superfund sites always spring to mind but we seem to have socialized costs oozing out of every business. Capitalists should abhore this type of gross inefficiency. In theory the business could solve the issues internally: cheaper, faster, better than the government could ever hope, lowering the overall tax burden and ultimately preventing problems at the source. Regulation is very expensive because you have to enforce it. You can tax anything, though. Maybe that is a better route to promoting good behavior "voluntarily."
superb_dev 2y ago
Or just filter out the obvious crap. They already have that power, they just need to exercise it.
realusername 2y ago
Since half of the ads I see are very obvious scams, I'm saying that there's easy improvements from the wild west that it is now. Even basic checks would improve the situation. At some point Google must have some responsibility regarding this mess, they can't reasonably say that they do not know anymore.
mrighele 2y ago
What do you mean "power" ? It's not like parent is asking for them to have special powers, only to vet their advertisers, like a newspaper would do. If they can't do that at scale, it's their problem and should downsize accordingly.
kerkeslager 2y ago
> So your solution is for YT/Google/Meta to check the code, operations, finances, and business models of every advertiser that comes to them? Sure, why not? I literally don't care if this causes them to go bankrupt. If your business doesn't work without breaking the law, your business doesn't work, and we're not obligated as a society to form our laws to make your business work. I mean seriously, if your local convenience store was letting people sling cocaine out the back because they couldn't make a profit selling candy and sandwiches, would you be like "Oh that's okay."? Obviously not. I'm not even for drug prohibition, but applying the laws we have fairly seems even more fundamental. That said, fears that this would cause them to go bankrupt are likely overblown. > Even if YT/Google/Meta could do this at scale, do you want them to have that power? They already have that power. They can put whatever conditions they want on doing business with advertisers.
snapcaster 2y ago
Why is it taken for granted that companies should be allowed to scale beyond the point that they can still comply with laws?

segasaturn 2y ago

If Google/Meta/Youtube want to be multi-trillion dollar monopolies that have invaded every aspect of our lives then there should be some very basic corporate responsibility that comes with that power, even if its difficult and maybe even costs them a little bit of money. Lately it seems like the phrase has been inverted to "with great power comes less responsibility". If your small local TV station ran ads for cocaine and synthetic opioids nobody would be making these kinds of excuses.

linotype 2y ago
Aside from YouTube, there’s an alternative for all of the services provided by Google and Meta. Fastmail, X (Twitter), a billion different messenger apps, Microsoft apps for office applications, etc etc.
- rurp 2y ago
  A company doesn't need a literal 100% market share to have monopolistic power. Products like Google Search or Gmail that dominate their respective markets count.
- mrguyorama 2y ago
  Google and Facebook are ads companies. Everything they build, deploy, do, share, sell, and buy is about selling ads. Youtube is a platform to sell ads. Gmail is a platform to collect data to sell ads. Facebook is a platform to collect data to sell ads on Facebook. Both companies have "analytics" products that exist to collect more data for ads. What competition is there in the Ad space for internet advertising?
  - linotype 2y ago
    I agree there really isn’t any for ads, it’s pretty much a duopoly now (though TikTok and Amazon are growing). I was more referring to consumer products like email and office suites.
datavirtue 2y ago
Yeah, all the socialized losses from business have fallen on governments and citizens to pay for it, and figure out how to do it. Superfund sites always spring to mind but we seem to have socialized costs oozing out of every business. Capitalists should abhore this type of gross inefficiency. In theory the business could solve the issues internally: cheaper, faster, better than the government could ever hope, lowering the overall tax burden and ultimately preventing problems at the source. Regulation is very expensive because you have to enforce it. You can tax anything, though. Maybe that is a better route to promoting good behavior "voluntarily."

superb_dev 2y ago

Or just filter out the obvious crap. They already have that power, they just need to exercise it.

realusername 2y ago

Since half of the ads I see are very obvious scams, I'm saying that there's easy improvements from the wild west that it is now. Even basic checks would improve the situation. At some point Google must have some responsibility regarding this mess, they can't reasonably say that they do not know anymore.

mrighele 2y ago

What do you mean "power" ? It's not like parent is asking for them to have special powers, only to vet their advertisers, like a newspaper would do. If they can't do that at scale, it's their problem and should downsize accordingly.

kerkeslager 2y ago

> So your solution is for YT/Google/Meta to check the code, operations, finances, and business models of every advertiser that comes to them? Sure, why not? I literally don't care if this causes them to go bankrupt. If your business doesn't work without breaking the law, your business doesn't work, and we're not obligated as a society to form our laws to make your business work. I mean seriously, if your local convenience store was letting people sling cocaine out the back because they couldn't make a profit selling candy and sandwiches, would you be like "Oh that's okay."? Obviously not. I'm not even for drug prohibition, but applying the laws we have fairly seems even more fundamental. That said, fears that this would cause them to go bankrupt are likely overblown. > Even if YT/Google/Meta could do this at scale, do you want them to have that power? They already have that power. They can put whatever conditions they want on doing business with advertisers.

snapcaster 2y ago

Why is it taken for granted that companies should be allowed to scale beyond the point that they can still comply with laws?