US DOJ to probe Google for Anti-Trust practices.

[DireWolfM14]

It's about time.  Google has been a dominant force in internet search and is very likely manipulating result to promote businesses with which they contract and for which they advertise. 

The other issue I would like to see investigated is if Google is skewing search results to promote or subvert certain political points of view.  I don't know how the DOJ will approach the probe, and whether manipulations of political stories within Googles news services are part of the probe.

The internet is still relatively new and forging new territories within our culture.  As a society we've been keeping a fairly hands off approach to tech companies' growth and business practices.  As a result these companies have plundered our personal information for their own financial domination.  I'm optimistic the DOJ probe will expose some of the more dangerous aspects of these tech companies' business practices.


https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/31/doj-preparing-antitrust-probe-of-google---dow-jones.html

[squatz1]

Eh. I don't really know if this is something that the DOJ is going to be able to win though. As they're attacking a private company for behaving as such. Obviously, they're not going to make their website super easy to use for other browsers (The whole youtube dilemma) and stuff like that. I would think any company if they were put into their position, would do the same thing.

Plus there are competitors of Google for their products.

Google Drive - Dropbox, Microsoft Cloud, etc.

Youtube - There are some shitty alternatives, but they still are present.

Google Ads - Bing Ads, Facebook Ads, Twitter Ads, etc.

Google Cloud - Amazon Web Services, and the many other web service companies

Google Browser - Firefox, Opera, Edge, etc.

Google.com - DuckDuckGo, etc.

And so on and so forth.

[TECSHARE]

Eh. I don't really know if this is something that the DOJ is going to be able to win though. As they're attacking a private company for behaving as such. Obviously, they're not going to make their website super easy to use for other browsers (The whole youtube dilemma) and stuff like that. I would think any company if they were put into their position, would do the same thing.

Plus there are competitors of Google for their products.

Google Drive - Dropbox, Microsoft Cloud, etc.

Youtube - There are some shitty alternatives, but they still are present.

Google Ads - Bing Ads, Facebook Ads, Twitter Ads, etc.

Google Cloud - Amazon Web Services, and the many other web service companies

Google Browser - Firefox, Opera, Edge, etc.

Google.com - DuckDuckGo, etc.

And so on and so forth.

You should review the standards by which a monopoly is determined to be in violation of anti-trust laws. It is not as cut and dry as any competition simply existing. There are three main premises which many of these companies fall clearly under such as restraint of trade, market share, and market power among other things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law

[squatz1]

Eh. I don't really know if this is something that the DOJ is going to be able to win though. As they're attacking a private company for behaving as such. Obviously, they're not going to make their website super easy to use for other browsers (The whole youtube dilemma) and stuff like that. I would think any company if they were put into their position, would do the same thing.

Plus there are competitors of Google for their products.

Google Drive - Dropbox, Microsoft Cloud, etc.

Youtube - There are some shitty alternatives, but they still are present.

Google Ads - Bing Ads, Facebook Ads, Twitter Ads, etc.

Google Cloud - Amazon Web Services, and the many other web service companies

Google Browser - Firefox, Opera, Edge, etc.

Google.com - DuckDuckGo, etc.

And so on and so forth.

You should review the standards by which a monopoly is determined to be in violation of anti-trust laws. It is not as cut and dry as any competition simply existing. There are three main premises which many of these companies fall clearly under such as restraint of trade, market share, and market power among other things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law

I mean wouldn't you say that there are better examples of this sort of monopoly and anti-trust behavior though.

The companies that the DOJ and the US government goes after are usually companies like Microsoft (when they have 90 percent market share) and Standard Oil Company when they had the same level of market share. Google isn't near that number, and there's no precedent for going after a company with a market share of 67 to 80 percent depending on how you measure it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/6xf6me/cmv_google_is_not_a_monopoly/

[TECSHARE]

Eh. I don't really know if this is something that the DOJ is going to be able to win though. As they're attacking a private company for behaving as such. Obviously, they're not going to make their website super easy to use for other browsers (The whole youtube dilemma) and stuff like that. I would think any company if they were put into their position, would do the same thing.

Plus there are competitors of Google for their products.

Google Drive - Dropbox, Microsoft Cloud, etc.

Youtube - There are some shitty alternatives, but they still are present.

Google Ads - Bing Ads, Facebook Ads, Twitter Ads, etc.

Google Cloud - Amazon Web Services, and the many other web service companies

Google Browser - Firefox, Opera, Edge, etc.

Google.com - DuckDuckGo, etc.

And so on and so forth.

You should review the standards by which a monopoly is determined to be in violation of anti-trust laws. It is not as cut and dry as any competition simply existing. There are three main premises which many of these companies fall clearly under such as restraint of trade, market share, and market power among other things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law

I mean wouldn't you say that there are better examples of this sort of monopoly and anti-trust behavior though.

The companies that the DOJ and the US government goes after are usually companies like Microsoft (when they have 90 percent market share) and Standard Oil Company when they had the same level of market share. Google isn't near that number, and there's no precedent for going after a company with a market share of 67 to 80 percent depending on how you measure it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/6xf6me/cmv_google_is_not_a_monopoly/

Right off the bat there is a problem with this source. It is using a generalized dictionary definition of "monopoly", not the legal definition and its relevant prerequisites. There are far more issues to be addressed here than purely market share. If you go down this list you will see Google as well as many other tech companies fall firmly within many of these descriptions.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sherman+Anti-Trust+Act

"The courts look to several criteria in determining market power but primarily focus on market share (the company's fractional share of the total relevant product and geographic market). A market share greater than 75 percent indicates monopoly power, a share less than 50 percent does not, and shares between 50 and 75 percent are inconclusive in and of themselves."

[theymos]

Antitrust laws are anti-free-market and shouldn't exist. Where monopolies exist, they're almost always created by government action. Google's dominance is largely due to it beating competitors fair-and-square, though they've also been helped by the fact that their size allows them to more efficiently deal with legal issues (eg. copyright on YouTube) than smaller competitors could. The correct solution is to remove regulatory/legal barriers preventing competition, not to interfere directly in any business's operation.

Also, while I certainly don't support everything they do, out of the major tech companies, IMO Google is one of the more reasonable. Their privacy practices seem pretty good, YouTube is much freer than Facebook or Twitter, Google's handling of subpoenas etc. is basically the gold standard, etc.

That said, I'd much prefer antitrust actions over regulations. If for example the US tried to weaken section 230 in order to address perceived abuses by Big Tech, that'd be a true disaster for the free Internet.

Right off the bat there is a problem with this source. It is using a generalized dictionary definition of "monopoly", not the legal definition and its relevant prerequisites. There are far more issues to be addressed here than purely market share. If you go down this list you will see Google as well as many other tech companies fall firmly within many of these descriptions.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sherman+Anti-Trust+Act

"The courts look to several criteria in determining market power but primarily focus on market share (the company's fractional share of the total relevant product and geographic market). A market share greater than 75 percent indicates monopoly power, a share less than 50 percent does not, and shares between 50 and 75 percent are inconclusive in and of themselves."

From what I've heard, all US antitrust law requires some sort of anti-competitive overt act. So even if you have 100% market share, no antitrust action whatsoever can be taken unless there's evidence of you plotting to prevent competition in some way or other.

But I'm not an expert.

[TECSHARE]

Antitrust laws are anti-free-market and shouldn't exist. Where monopolies exist, they're almost always created by government action. Google's dominance is largely due to it beating competitors fair-and-square, though they've also been helped by the fact that their size allows them to more efficiently deal with legal issues (eg. copyright on YouTube) than smaller competitors could. The correct solution is to remove regulatory/legal barriers preventing competition, not to interfere directly in any business's operation.

Also, while I certainly don't support everything they do, out of the major tech companies, IMO Google is one of the more reasonable. Their privacy practices seem pretty good, YouTube is much freer than Facebook or Twitter, Google's handling of subpoenas etc. is basically the gold standard, etc.

That said, I'd much prefer antitrust actions over regulations. If for example the US tried to weaken section 230 in order to address perceived abuses by Big Tech, that'd be a true disaster for the free Internet.

Right off the bat there is a problem with this source. It is using a generalized dictionary definition of "monopoly", not the legal definition and its relevant prerequisites. There are far more issues to be addressed here than purely market share. If you go down this list you will see Google as well as many other tech companies fall firmly within many of these descriptions.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sherman+Anti-Trust+Act

"The courts look to several criteria in determining market power but primarily focus on market share (the company's fractional share of the total relevant product and geographic market). A market share greater than 75 percent indicates monopoly power, a share less than 50 percent does not, and shares between 50 and 75 percent are inconclusive in and of themselves."

From what I've heard, all US antitrust law requires some sort of anti-competitive overt act. So even if you have 100% market share, no antitrust action whatsoever can be taken unless there's evidence of you plotting to prevent competition in some way or other.

But I'm not an expert.

Except Google has had government assistance from day one, as well as Facebook and likely others. See the seed funding from In-Q-tel, an openly run venture capitol firm run by the CIA. It is more than evident most of these companies were created with the explicit intent of building the original "Total Information Awareness" programs that they could never get under the direct government umbrella. The private companies get around all of the protections designed to limit government power, and the government simply pays for the data on the private market. Regarding market share, I literally just explained that market share is not the only factor, and that they clearly fall under many of the other prerequisites listed in the link provided. You don't need to be an expert to read the law.

[Quickseller]

Various other government agencies are probing other major tech compaines, including Facebook, Twitter and Apple.

Antitrust laws are anti-free-market and shouldn't exist. Where monopolies exist, they're almost always created by government action. Google's dominance is largely due to it beating competitors fair-and-square,

I would have to strongly disagree with you on this.

When a company becomes a monopoly, that is unchecked by the government, they effectively become the government, and a regulator, except they do not have accountability that elected officials have. The role of government/regulator does not usually take place until the monopoly has a stronghold in their market for some time, and generally increases over time. Monopolies also will often engage in anti-free market behavior in order to maintain their status.

Take a hypothetical example of Ford hypothetically becoming a monopoly and running all other car manufacturers out of business. They may have initially obtained their 100% market share by beating out the competition, although they may not play fair once they have this market share. For example, car manufacturers buy various car parts from many suppliers, including tire manufacturers. Any tire manufacturer who supplies tires to Ford is going to rely heavily on Ford for survival, and Ford is likely to be their, by far, largest customer. If a competitor were to try to enter the car market, Ford could refuse to do business with any company who supplies tires to their competitor, and the same with other suppliers of other parts. Any supplier who sells to Fords competitor would go out of business, or at best would see sales decline to nearly zero, except what Ford's competitor buys, who may or may not end up surviving. I would not consider this to be fair, and this would not be Ford continuing to beat new competitors fair-and-square.

Ford could also regulate their consumers, and increase this regulation over time. They could initially sell an optional feature included with their cars that will prevent cars from going over the speed limit by using a tracking device and a database of speed limits nationwide. Later, Ford could ship all of their cars with this equipment, but wont activate it unless requested by the customer. Eventually they could make this feature mandatory on all cars. After conducting a "study" they could decide to prevent their new cars from going over 45 MPH, even if the posted speed limit is faster. If someone were to criticize Fords pay practices, or other policies, Ford could effectively disable their car, and prevent the person from getting to work or traveling. Ford would know where the person both lives and works, so if a car is consistently traveling between the person's work and home, and other places the person frequents, Ford could effectively disable that car too.


Moving away from hypotheticals, there is an oligopoly of "Hollywood" movie/TV producers (they are actually located in various parts of the US, but control nearly the entire market), who produce nearly every major movie/TV series. If you are critical of any of these producers, you more or less will not get hired by any of the producers, be it if you are an actor/actress, or some kind of support staff. If you are critical of any of these executives, your career will effectively be over, and you will need to find a new line of work.

Harvy Weinstein took this a step further. He would coerce young women to have sex with him, and would end the career of anyone who refused, tried to speak out, or tried to help anyone who tried to speak out. Women Weinstein wanted to have sex with essentially had to choose between having their career ended, or having sex with him. According to various reports, some were able to avoid having to make this choice by always being with a friend while meeting with Weinstein, and never being alone with him, but others were not so lucky. The reporter who wrote the first article about Weinstein was effectively fired from his job at NBC for working on his Weinstein story, after being given the opportunity to drop the story, but he was lucky enough that another publisher picked him up. This is not a free market, this is something that is very, very wrong on many levels.

In regards to Google, they have an enormous amount of power, and influence. In the 2016 election, they tried to increase hispanic voter turnout by nudging users they believed to be Hispanic to vote, because they believed this would help Clinton (it may not have). Google is known to tinker with their algorithm to display certain articles, information and websites (and suggested searches) in a way that benefits their political beliefs, and hurts causes they are opposed to. Google, on its YouTube platform, has censored many political voices they do not agree with under the bogus guise that these people are using "hate speech".

Google has shown a willingness to censor not only what people can say, but what they can hear. If you are interested in what I have to say on my YouTube channel, but Google does not like what I am saying, they can decide you are not allowed to listen to what I have to say. They effectively have the ability to shift public opinion to how they see fit -- there are limitations to this because there are still competing media platforms that can still state opinions that Google does not like.

Google has effectively become what is effectively a sometimes-propaganda machine. Effective publishers of propaganda will hide the fact they are publishing propaganda, which I believes defeats the argument that others are free to compete with them. I honestly do not know if Google is engaging in similar anti-free market practices described in my hypothetical example above, I presume the DOJ will investigate that.

I don't have any major concerns with Google supporting causes they want to support. I do have major issues with Google using what I perceive to be deception to influence public opinion.

[TECSHARE]

I found this related article with some interesting historical parallels.

https://theconversation.com/for-tech-giants-a-cautionary-tale-from-19th-century-railroads-on-the-limits-of-competition-91616

[TECSHARE]

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-09-06/theyre-bad-america-state-ags-launch-new-anti-trust-probes-against-facebook-google

[TECSHARE]

"Dr. Robert Epstein: How Big Tech’s Algorithms Can Impact Opinions and Votes—and the 2020 Election"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFb6vwrE_o4

[Quanatix]

It's about time.  Google has been a dominant force in internet search and is very likely manipulating result to promote businesses with which they contract and for which they advertise. 

The other issue I would like to see investigated is if Google is skewing search results to promote or subvert certain political points of view.  I don't know how the DOJ will approach the probe, and whether manipulations of political stories within Googles news services are part of the probe.

The internet is still relatively new and forging new territories within our culture.  As a society we've been keeping a fairly hands off approach to tech companies' growth and business practices.  As a result these companies have plundered our personal information for their own financial domination.  I'm optimistic the DOJ probe will expose some of the more dangerous aspects of these tech companies' business practices.


https://www.c[Suspicious link removed]m/2019/05/31/doj-preparing-antitrust-probe-of-google---dow-jones.html

For as long as there is big money and government is not getting a piece of the pie, it will work to break up the piece of pie. But with that said, holding big companies accountable for their gargantuan profit margins and business practices is precisely what governments do. They are, after all, simply the biggest bullies in the corner with a legal monopoly on coercive force.

It would be interesting to see what big G has been up lately after it seems to have given up its past motto of "Don't Be Evil". With that in mind, let me quote former Googler Matt Cutts on the "Don't Be Evil" thing:

Reasonable people can disagree about how whether some things are evil. For example, some people believe that meat is murder, so eating a chicken burrito or wearing leather shoes is evil. Some people would argue that owning stock in (pick your favorite "evil" company) is itself evil; a few of those people would even consider it evil to own an index fund--which might hold shares of hundreds of companies--simply because the index fund might hold a few shares of the "evil" company.
To live a life (either as a person or a corporation) so that no one, anywhere in the world, at any time can accuse you of evil is impossible. I think a Bloom County comic strip made this point, with Opus the penguin getting more and more timid until eventually he was dangling from a tree to avoid stepping on things and killing them by accident. Even then, in the final frame Opus realized that by breathing he was killing tiny organisms in the air.

So I think "Do no evil" is an impossible standard: reasonable people can disagree on which choices are evil, and for different reasons. I prefer "Don't be evil" because it leaves room for honest disagreements, but still encourages Google to strive to make the world better.

By the way, when I see "do no evil" instead of "don't be evil" in an post or article, I know the author is much more likely to criticize Google. Once you start noticing how authors frame Google's core value as "Don't be evil" vs. "Do no evil" you'll often know what to expect from the article. Keep an eye out and you'll notice it in the future too.

Source: This was taken from Matt's Google+ feed which is now defunct

[TECSHARE]

"Reasonable people can disagree about how whether some things are evil. For example, some people believe that meat is murder, so eating a chicken burrito or wearing leather shoes is evil. Some people would argue that owning stock in (pick your favorite "evil" company) is itself evil; a few of those people would even consider it evil to own an index fund--which might hold shares of hundreds of companies--simply because the index fund might hold a few shares of the "evil" company.
To live a life (either as a person or a corporation) so that no one, anywhere in the world, at any time can accuse you of evil is impossible. I think a Bloom County comic strip made this point, with Opus the penguin getting more and more timid until eventually he was dangling from a tree to avoid stepping on things and killing them by accident. Even then, in the final frame Opus realized that by breathing he was killing tiny organisms in the air.

So I think "Do no evil" is an impossible standard: reasonable people can disagree on which choices are evil, and for different reasons. I prefer "Don't be evil" because it leaves room for honest disagreements, but still encourages Google to strive to make the world better.

By the way, when I see "do no evil" instead of "don't be evil" in an post or article, I know the author is much more likely to criticize Google. Once you start noticing how authors frame Google's core value as "Don't be evil" vs. "Do no evil" you'll often know what to expect from the article. Keep an eye out and you'll notice it in the future too."

Source: This was taken from Matt's Google+ feed which is now defunct"

Sounds like the perpetual cry of the Postmodern relativist justifying cultural suicide.

[squatz1]

Isn't there this issue with current anti-trust law in the fact that to prove that there is a monopoly, you'd have to show that consumers are being hurt by it in some way.

Take Amazon for example, yes they own tons and tons of companies and they continue to buy more and more.Though they've kept prices down, and they're not raising prices once they've taken over market share.

This is the same situation for Google, Facebook, etc.

[TECSHARE]

Isn't there this issue with current anti-trust law in the fact that to prove that there is a monopoly, you'd have to show that consumers are being hurt by it in some way.

Take Amazon for example, yes they own tons and tons of companies and they continue to buy more and more.Though they've kept prices down, and they're not raising prices once they've taken over market share.

This is the same situation for Google, Facebook, etc.

Yes, this is one of the primary metrics. In the case of Amazon, that is an entirely different animal because the business models are so vastly different. I am sure plenty of arguments could be made for them too. As far as observable damages to consumers, the action would not have been brought unless they had documentation of this. From my own observations though I would suggest election meddling, reduction of options in competition of a plethora of services, tortious interference, and working against US national security interests in coordination with a foreign state would be at the top of the list.

[squatz1]

Isn't there this issue with current anti-trust law in the fact that to prove that there is a monopoly, you'd have to show that consumers are being hurt by it in some way.

Take Amazon for example, yes they own tons and tons of companies and they continue to buy more and more.Though they've kept prices down, and they're not raising prices once they've taken over market share.

This is the same situation for Google, Facebook, etc.

Yes, this is one of the primary metrics. In the case of Amazon, that is an entirely different animal because the business models are so vastly different. I am sure plenty of arguments could be made for them too. As far as observable damages to consumers, the action would not have been brought unless they had documentation of this. From my own observations though I would suggest election meddling, reduction of options in competition of a plethora of services, tortious interference, and working against US national security interests in coordination with a foreign state would be at the top of the list.

Then again, isn't this something that any company could do and any individual can do?

Any company could devote billions of dollars towards a candidate if they wanted to, there's nothing illegal with that. Obviously they'd have to donate towards the candidates aligned super pacs instead of anything else.

Working against US security interests isn't going to be allowed though. Though I suppose the US would have to show that they're working against the US on purpose in order to hurt the US.

[TECSHARE]

Isn't there this issue with current anti-trust law in the fact that to prove that there is a monopoly, you'd have to show that consumers are being hurt by it in some way.

Take Amazon for example, yes they own tons and tons of companies and they continue to buy more and more.Though they've kept prices down, and they're not raising prices once they've taken over market share.

This is the same situation for Google, Facebook, etc.

Yes, this is one of the primary metrics. In the case of Amazon, that is an entirely different animal because the business models are so vastly different. I am sure plenty of arguments could be made for them too. As far as observable damages to consumers, the action would not have been brought unless they had documentation of this. From my own observations though I would suggest election meddling, reduction of options in competition of a plethora of services, tortious interference, and working against US national security interests in coordination with a foreign state would be at the top of the list.

Then again, isn't this something that any company could do and any individual can do?

Any company could devote billions of dollars towards a candidate if they wanted to, there's nothing illegal with that. Obviously they'd have to donate towards the candidates aligned super pacs instead of anything else.

Working against US security interests isn't going to be allowed though. Though I suppose the US would have to show that they're working against the US on purpose in order to hurt the US.

You are not thinking of this in the context of a monopoly. As I already stated, that is just one metric. The other metrics I went over previously in the thread. It is a combination of all of these metrics together that makes it a viable antitrust case.

[TECSHARE]

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/facebook-walks-legal-trap-after-claiming-be-publisher-laura-loomer-lawsuit

[TECSHARE]

"Google creating 'god-like' artificial intelligence"

https://www.wnd.com/2019/10/google-creating-god-like-artificial-intelligence/

[squatz1]

Isn't there this issue with current anti-trust law in the fact that to prove that there is a monopoly, you'd have to show that consumers are being hurt by it in some way.

Take Amazon for example, yes they own tons and tons of companies and they continue to buy more and more.Though they've kept prices down, and they're not raising prices once they've taken over market share.

This is the same situation for Google, Facebook, etc.

Yes, this is one of the primary metrics. In the case of Amazon, that is an entirely different animal because the business models are so vastly different. I am sure plenty of arguments could be made for them too. As far as observable damages to consumers, the action would not have been brought unless they had documentation of this. From my own observations though I would suggest election meddling, reduction of options in competition of a plethora of services, tortious interference, and working against US national security interests in coordination with a foreign state would be at the top of the list.

Then again, isn't this something that any company could do and any individual can do?

Any company could devote billions of dollars towards a candidate if they wanted to, there's nothing illegal with that. Obviously they'd have to donate towards the candidates aligned super pacs instead of anything else.

Working against US security interests isn't going to be allowed though. Though I suppose the US would have to show that they're working against the US on purpose in order to hurt the US.

You are not thinking of this in the context of a monopoly. As I already stated, that is just one metric. The other metrics I went over previously in the thread. It is a combination of all of these metrics together that makes it a viable antitrust case.

Even if it is a viable case, do you truly think that the US government is going to go after a company that they're practically in bed with. Google helps the US government with pretty much any and every investigation they have. I think it's practically confirmed at this point that the NSA pays google to help them spy on people.

Plus -- google donates large deals of money to politicians and political parties, making an investigation into them a political problem as well.

Eh?