3 ms·

> Google isn’t a monopoly in the Standard Oil sense of the term. Aren’t they? It doesn’t sound like those two interpretations are mutually exclusive.

spacebanana7 1y ago
In the sense of the Sherman Act and similar legislation, monopolies exist in the sense of having exclusive control over some supply and raising prices against consumers. This isn't what Google does, they generally lower prices for consumers and the competition is only a click away.
- _mlbt 1y ago
  What realistic alternatives are there in the mobile app ads space that aren’t geared towards games? I’m genuinely curious because some apps can be hard to monetize in any other way.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > In the sense of the Sherman Act [...] > This isn't what Google does [...] Odd, then, that this is the second case within a year where Google has been found, in fact, to have violated the Sherman Act. This suggests that your description of what the Sherman Act means, or of what Google does (or both) are wrong in significant ways.
- no_wizard 1y ago
  The consumer harm standard is an outgrowth of the work of Robert Bork, who was Solicitor General for Nixon and Ford, respectively. It was not established by legislation but rather as a matter of conservative legal doctrine. Before Bork the commonly held evaluation standard was based on the Rule Of Reason. The Sherman Antitrust Act didn’t establish any guidelines for how it was suppose to be interpreted (the whole thing is only a few pages in length) and the Clayton Act only expanded upon what actions could be considered as part of an Anti trust case. The consumer welfare standard has no basis in legislation, only legal doctrine. It’s unfortunate we haven’t codified anything more concrete, as the consumer welfare standard has a number of flaws, as admittedly did prior legal doctrine. The Rule of Reason was more rigorous, though not flawless, as far as market competition goes though, my view is it is a better legal doctrine overall and could be updated to better address todays and future concerns, particularly with digital goods and technology.
  - alabastervlog 1y ago
    I judge this Chicago-school-pushed shift in antitrust enforcement so bad that I usually mark it out as the first noteworthy step on our current thrust toward authoritarianism. The market consolidation we've seen since, and the concentration of power, have been absolute poison for both liberal democracy and the good aspects of capitalism, so far as contributing to the common good.
- arrosenberg 1y ago
  The consumer of the ad platform is the advertiser, not the person clicking the ad. Major advertisers either play ball with Google or their ads don't get seen in search. Doesn't seem very different to Standard Oil controlling who got access to refineries.

spacebanana7 1y ago

In the sense of the Sherman Act and similar legislation, monopolies exist in the sense of having exclusive control over some supply and raising prices against consumers. This isn't what Google does, they generally lower prices for consumers and the competition is only a click away.

_mlbt 1y ago
What realistic alternatives are there in the mobile app ads space that aren’t geared towards games? I’m genuinely curious because some apps can be hard to monetize in any other way.
dragonwriter 1y ago
> In the sense of the Sherman Act [...] > This isn't what Google does [...] Odd, then, that this is the second case within a year where Google has been found, in fact, to have violated the Sherman Act. This suggests that your description of what the Sherman Act means, or of what Google does (or both) are wrong in significant ways.
no_wizard 1y ago
The consumer harm standard is an outgrowth of the work of Robert Bork, who was Solicitor General for Nixon and Ford, respectively. It was not established by legislation but rather as a matter of conservative legal doctrine. Before Bork the commonly held evaluation standard was based on the Rule Of Reason. The Sherman Antitrust Act didn’t establish any guidelines for how it was suppose to be interpreted (the whole thing is only a few pages in length) and the Clayton Act only expanded upon what actions could be considered as part of an Anti trust case. The consumer welfare standard has no basis in legislation, only legal doctrine. It’s unfortunate we haven’t codified anything more concrete, as the consumer welfare standard has a number of flaws, as admittedly did prior legal doctrine. The Rule of Reason was more rigorous, though not flawless, as far as market competition goes though, my view is it is a better legal doctrine overall and could be updated to better address todays and future concerns, particularly with digital goods and technology.
- alabastervlog 1y ago
  I judge this Chicago-school-pushed shift in antitrust enforcement so bad that I usually mark it out as the first noteworthy step on our current thrust toward authoritarianism. The market consolidation we've seen since, and the concentration of power, have been absolute poison for both liberal democracy and the good aspects of capitalism, so far as contributing to the common good.
arrosenberg 1y ago
The consumer of the ad platform is the advertiser, not the person clicking the ad. Major advertisers either play ball with Google or their ads don't get seen in search. Doesn't seem very different to Standard Oil controlling who got access to refineries.