Google Critics Think the Search Remedies Ruling is a Total Whiff (theverge.com)
- Reference: 0178992302
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/25/09/03/1349225/google-critics-think-the-search-remedies-ruling-is-a-total-whiff
- Source link: https://www.theverge.com/news/769738/google-doj-antitrust-remedies-ruling-critics
The Open Markets Institute called it "pure judicial cowardice" that leaves Google's power "almost fully intact." Senator Amy Klobuchar said the limited remedies demonstrate why Congress needs to pass legislation stopping dominant platforms from preferencing their own products. The News/Media Alliance criticized Judge Amit Mehta for failing to address Google forcing publishers to provide content for AI offerings to remain in search results.
[1] https://yro.slashdot.org/story/25/09/02/2119208/google-gets-to-keep-chrome-but-is-barred-from-exclusive-search-deals-judge-rules
[2] https://www.theverge.com/news/769738/google-doj-antitrust-remedies-ruling-critics
These aren't different "products" to the user (Score:4, Interesting)
Treating image search, finance search, travel search, and news search as different "products" is a false flag by DuckDuckGo and others.
When I search for a topic - let's say NVidia - all I care about is are the results accurate, relevant, and actionable.
If they aren't then over time I will go and use a different tool.
Having to go to different places for different kinds of search is just ridiculously anti-consumer and short-sighted - especially in this age of AI. If a ruling like that happened, then Perplexity would just totally eat Googles lunch, not because their results were better but simply because users wouldn't have to go to multiple places.
Re: (Score:2)
> Having to go to different places for different kinds of search is just ridiculously anti-consumer and short-sighted - especially in this age of AI.
I totally agree. What may be worse is having to go to different places for the same search.
I default to DDG and use it as much as possible, mostly because it's "not Google" and is therefore less evil. But increasingly, I can try DDG and get zero hits, whereas for the same search terms Google delivers a dozen or more, with usually at least one helpful link in the bunch.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct.
For search to operate ANY OTHER WAY would be COMPLETELY IDIOTIC.
So, naturally, that's what lawmakers and dumbasses promote.
Still waiting for Internet Explorer to be removed (Score:2)
Instead of it being the default install on every version of Windows!
Lets just State The Obvious (Score:3)
It was too complicated for the judge or the DOJ to understand.
They were busy arguing about Chrome, defaults, and algo minutia.
Google divesting of chrome would have done nothing. It's an open source project. Google would have simply 'appified' the entire ecosystem and slammed it down the throat of the internet using the power of the search engine - again.
Defaults. Google could easily have turned the loss of apple-as-default into a win. Google gets so little from the apple default. It's not a payment for default on devices, the $25b is please don't sue us for stealing your phone idea. "I would go nuclear in defense of iPhone" - Steve Jobs. I believe the $25b is a payoff to keep in Apples good graces.
Algo. by the time Google is forced to share anything - the algo will have changed - ai will have been embedded - the index will have changed - they will share nothing but junk data with anyone.
The focus should have been on the collusion with Facebook, [1]https://arstechnica.com/tech-p... [arstechnica.com]
The bottom line is simple: Google has destroyed the internet advertising space.
In 1999, I ran banners for $12-15 cpm. Post crash, the day AdSense launched I was running them for about $6cpm. By 2015, those ads were making less than $2 cpm, and today it is down to less than .25cents cpm and traffic had dried up. Better content - more fresh - quality than ever before.
Google used the power of the search engine algo to destroy internet advertising programs (including affiliate programs). I fully believe Google targeted affiliate programs by reducing clicks it sent to them.
I also believe they reduced traffic to AdSense sites to drive advertisers to the AdWords where Google's "take" was much higher.
All of that just never bothered to come up in court.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/12/new-suits-accuse-google-of-antitrust-evils-collusion-with-facebook/
Re: (Score:2)
Read that ars article I linked to - spells it all out "Facebook in 2017 figured out a way to make money from a new online-advertising bidding system. Google thought that new tactic posed an "existential threat" to its own massive slice of the advertising pie and made an agreement with Facebook: Facebook would cut back on the new tech, and Google would give Facebook a big edge in its own advertising auctions."
That did not come up in court. The emails that the state of tx says exist between Facebook and G
Need a too big to fail rule (Score:4, Interesting)
We need a rule that if a company is 'too big to fail', then it should automatically be required to break up.
Keep in mind that most companies that were broken up by the US ended up creating multiple thriving companies as a result.
Microsoft was created when IBM split out their software from their hardware.
AT&T became the Baby Bells - resulting in Verizon.
Standard Oil became Exxon, Cheveron and BP
American Tobacco became RJ Reynolds and Ligget Myers
Not one of these break ups harmed the country or the share holders.
Why do we have a justice department (Score:2)
If they can't create change for issues that are clearly a problem. If these companies retain their power over time, this does not bode well for the future.
It may not matter (Score:2)
New AI tools are replacing traditional search
Google is one of the leaders in AI research and their AI assisted search is getting better
As usual, the law is slow and late when dealing with fast moving tech
not gonna happen (Score:2)
Certainly not in the current US regulatory climate, which amounts to "do whatever you want as long as the big guy at the top gets his cut". The Supreme Court isn't gonna bother, either. Big companies are safe as long as they're donating a few 10s of millions of dollars to the right guy.
In any case, breaking up big companies has been unnecessary for the past 50 years or more. IBM was an unstoppable juggernaut at one point. There was no need to break it up. It lost it's mojo, shrank on it's own, and got m
Re: (Score:2)
> There can certainly be cases where monopolies need to be broken up, but I'm just not seeing it in today's internet companies.
I think people keep forgetting that the point of anti-monopoly laws are to protect the *consumer* from financial damage. What financial damage are consumers facing when they use Google Search?
The second factor to consider is friction. How hard is it to not use Google Search? It takes about two seconds to type in another URL. It takes about ten seconds to change the default browser in Chrome to something other than Google. How long does it take to install a browser other than Chrome? A minute or two?
Google and government (Score:2)
Google provides so much data to the US government, there's no way they're going to get smacked down by it.
They could threaten to either stop providing the info, or tell people what they have been providing.
Nothing to see here... move along... move along
Oh, come on!! (Score:2)
> ... stopping dominant platforms from preferencing their own products.
Maybe the dumbest bullshit in the history of mankind.
Of course a company is going to prefer selling its own products rather than anyone else's products.
It should!
Why wouldn't it?
It's completely natural behaviour!
Congress should fuck off.
Re: Um (Score:1)
Do you also pine for Myspace?