4 ms·

Im not necessarily saying its extortion. Im saying his observation is why the EU could extort Google for a lot more than $3B. My wording was unclear so I tried

Im not necessarily saying its extortion. Im saying his observation is why the EU could extort Google for a lot more than $3B. My wording was unclear so I tried editing my original comment but apparently it was removed. Why forfeit $20B in revenue in exchange for NOT having to pay $3B? I think that's an astute observation by the original commenter.

bee_rider 1y ago
Sorry for the incorrect read I guess. Hopefully it will be restored and I’ll get a chance to re-read it (fwiw I wish it hadn’t been flagged).
- nonethewiser 1y ago
  I think I've summarized it well enough. I would copy/paste it for clarity but I will avoid that, as I'm not trying to give the impression of evading content moderation. EDIT: FWIW I think your observation that the EU is threading a needle stands. It's a controversial topic that people are very passionate about.
hopelite 1y ago
Here's a better option that Google will more likely follow; simply build the fines into operation costs and bill that to EU customers or maybe all Google customers looking to serve ads in the EU. I am not sure why but otherwise seemingly intelligent people seem to be incapable of internalizing that any cost, expense, or fine levied against any corporate entity will always, with 100% (not any other percentage) be rolled into prices. The minor headache of it lowering returns will also be offset and will not really make a difference to any meaningful degree. Most likely Google, just like other corporations that are exposed to this kind of risk, will have set aside a "war chest" they have been building up over prior years, which further would defray any real impact. Then of course there is the fact that these fines are rarely ever the actual amount that will be paid in the end, and most of the time it can be distributed over time. What people should really take away from this is that in the end it really is kind of an extortion racket by the EU, but not of Google, but rather of the advertising companies the end consumers who end up paying from he higher priced ads through product prices, and possibly the general Google customer base. This would really only be an issue that materially impacted Google if there were some kind of real competition in the space, which there is not really. What the EU could possibly do that would have a notable impact is setting industry standards to, e.g., a universal ad format that is ad broker agnostic, e.g., your app, site, service, etc could just serve up ads from all kinds of places, a kind of free market of ads not dominated by Google. But even with that, with Google's advancement in AI generated content, they will likely also dominate the ad generation market soon. The oddest thing is that the EU and Europe in general has all but floundered in many ways regarding the generation of a competitive technology industry. But that's a whole different topic.
- mitthrowaway2 1y ago
  This is why the fines should be high enough that a competitor who doesn't engage in abusive practices, and doesn't have fines levied against them, can out-compete the ones that do. Then competitive pressure would prevent companies from just treating fines as a cost of doing business and passing it on to their customers. Of course, in a market with this degree of concentrated market power, those fines would have to be very very high indeed...
- overfeed 1y ago
  > Here's a better option that Google will more likely follow; simply build the fines into operation costs and bill that to EU customers or maybe all Google customers looking to serve ads in the EU. Google applying tariffs to itself in Europe might be something the EC may a) investigate and fine Google for ripping off Europeans, and/or b) approve of; they previously considered a big-tech tax to improve competition in Europe. Google would be doing them a favor, and Trump won't send them a nastygram this time around.
  - nonethewiser 1y ago
    Why would you classify this as a tariff? >build the fines into operation costs and bill that to EU customers or maybe all Google customers looking to serve ads in the EU.
    - lucketone 1y ago
      Tariff’s usual goal is to increase the price to reduce competitiveness. My guess is that exactly this similarity coupled with a pinch of humour, was what caused op to classify it as such.
    - overfeed 1y ago
      It was tongue in cheek, since only governments can effect actual tariffs. However, the consumer effects of a "tax" or surcharge on a foreign service applied to a specific jurisdiction are indistinguishable from a tariff. The only difference is the money doesn't go to the government treasury - in any case, that's not the reason most governments introduce tariffs. If Google were to introduce a Europe surcharge, they'd be ironically in alignment with Brussels.
saalweachter 1y ago
So here's the thing. There are two types of businesses: those allergic to change, and those unable to stay the same. If you are at a corporation where you constantly have to be Doing Things which Demonstrate Impact, this sort of judgement or regulatory change is a godsend for hundreds or thousands of middle-managers and engineers. You have a project with clear goals ("comply with court order/new regulations"), relatively low bars for success (minimal impact on the bottom line), and it's all very clear to upper management that the work you're doing is Important. Heck, you might be able to lean on it for a couple of years to justify your existence, instead of trying to convince people that changing the rating system from a five point scale to a percentage then back to a five point scale was a worthwhile use of a dozen employees worth of headcount. There may be some industries where change is anathema or the owners' oppositional defiance disorder makes they unwilling to change things just because they're illegal, but there's also plenty of others where people will be gleefully fighting for the opportunity to comply with a court order.

bee_rider 1y ago

Sorry for the incorrect read I guess. Hopefully it will be restored and I’ll get a chance to re-read it (fwiw I wish it hadn’t been flagged).

nonethewiser 1y ago
I think I've summarized it well enough. I would copy/paste it for clarity but I will avoid that, as I'm not trying to give the impression of evading content moderation. EDIT: FWIW I think your observation that the EU is threading a needle stands. It's a controversial topic that people are very passionate about.

hopelite 1y ago

Here's a better option that Google will more likely follow; simply build the fines into operation costs and bill that to EU customers or maybe all Google customers looking to serve ads in the EU. I am not sure why but otherwise seemingly intelligent people seem to be incapable of internalizing that any cost, expense, or fine levied against any corporate entity will always, with 100% (not any other percentage) be rolled into prices. The minor headache of it lowering returns will also be offset and will not really make a difference to any meaningful degree. Most likely Google, just like other corporations that are exposed to this kind of risk, will have set aside a "war chest" they have been building up over prior years, which further would defray any real impact. Then of course there is the fact that these fines are rarely ever the actual amount that will be paid in the end, and most of the time it can be distributed over time. What people should really take away from this is that in the end it really is kind of an extortion racket by the EU, but not of Google, but rather of the advertising companies the end consumers who end up paying from he higher priced ads through product prices, and possibly the general Google customer base. This would really only be an issue that materially impacted Google if there were some kind of real competition in the space, which there is not really. What the EU could possibly do that would have a notable impact is setting industry standards to, e.g., a universal ad format that is ad broker agnostic, e.g., your app, site, service, etc could just serve up ads from all kinds of places, a kind of free market of ads not dominated by Google. But even with that, with Google's advancement in AI generated content, they will likely also dominate the ad generation market soon. The oddest thing is that the EU and Europe in general has all but floundered in many ways regarding the generation of a competitive technology industry. But that's a whole different topic.

mitthrowaway2 1y ago
This is why the fines should be high enough that a competitor who doesn't engage in abusive practices, and doesn't have fines levied against them, can out-compete the ones that do. Then competitive pressure would prevent companies from just treating fines as a cost of doing business and passing it on to their customers. Of course, in a market with this degree of concentrated market power, those fines would have to be very very high indeed...
overfeed 1y ago
> Here's a better option that Google will more likely follow; simply build the fines into operation costs and bill that to EU customers or maybe all Google customers looking to serve ads in the EU. Google applying tariffs to itself in Europe might be something the EC may a) investigate and fine Google for ripping off Europeans, and/or b) approve of; they previously considered a big-tech tax to improve competition in Europe. Google would be doing them a favor, and Trump won't send them a nastygram this time around.
- nonethewiser 1y ago
  Why would you classify this as a tariff? >build the fines into operation costs and bill that to EU customers or maybe all Google customers looking to serve ads in the EU.
  - lucketone 1y ago
    Tariff’s usual goal is to increase the price to reduce competitiveness. My guess is that exactly this similarity coupled with a pinch of humour, was what caused op to classify it as such.
  - overfeed 1y ago
    It was tongue in cheek, since only governments can effect actual tariffs. However, the consumer effects of a "tax" or surcharge on a foreign service applied to a specific jurisdiction are indistinguishable from a tariff. The only difference is the money doesn't go to the government treasury - in any case, that's not the reason most governments introduce tariffs. If Google were to introduce a Europe surcharge, they'd be ironically in alignment with Brussels.

saalweachter 1y ago

So here's the thing. There are two types of businesses: those allergic to change, and those unable to stay the same. If you are at a corporation where you constantly have to be Doing Things which Demonstrate Impact, this sort of judgement or regulatory change is a godsend for hundreds or thousands of middle-managers and engineers. You have a project with clear goals ("comply with court order/new regulations"), relatively low bars for success (minimal impact on the bottom line), and it's all very clear to upper management that the work you're doing is Important. Heck, you might be able to lean on it for a couple of years to justify your existence, instead of trying to convince people that changing the rating system from a five point scale to a percentage then back to a five point scale was a worthwhile use of a dozen employees worth of headcount. There may be some industries where change is anathema or the owners' oppositional defiance disorder makes they unwilling to change things just because they're illegal, but there's also plenty of others where people will be gleefully fighting for the opportunity to comply with a court order.