We won't know what the arguments are until the lawsuit is actually filed, or until it leaks. We don't even know what laws Google are alleged to have broken, nor what remedy the government seeks. And one thing we for sure won't know for a long, long time is whether they'll be able to make anything stick.
Long story short, Google is using its search dominance to provide unfair advantage to other Google and Alphabet products. This is primarily done through features or "snippets" competitors cannot earn or even pay for.
Many of the details are not yet public. The individual investigations (some being conducted by states) are said to focus on multiple issues, but the one with the most discussion and evidence centers on the issue I described.
For example, google a flight you may take regularly, or just "LAX to JFK". Your first result after ads will probably be a Google widget. Can sites like Kayak or Expedia get that widget? No. Can they compete with Google showing real-time prices right in the SERP? No. It's the definition of anti-competitive behavior.
Google originally argued they don't advantage their own products. They've since admitted they do. Meanwhile they company is moving into more and more verticles and squeezing others out using its search engine as the weapon.
The vast majority of qualified traffic comes from search engines, and for my sites it's more like 95-97% Google. Many have argued the 90% market share figure is too low, because Yahoo and Microsoft include their internal searches to sound better. If Google decides to create a search widget competing with some function of my site, even if Google's version is really shitty, my business suffers badly. This isn't theoretical. Go Google "speed test." Your first result is a Google widget they added to search results. Ookla IMO has a much better product. But Google's widget is first for basically everyone who searches for a speed test. The M-Lab/Google test caps out for me well short of my real bandwidth. But I guarantee Ookla's traffic took a beating when Google decided to insert their own product at the top.
Unfortunately, Google has a lot of lawyers, and it's also reported that Barr is trying to rush this thing forward to provide a win for Trump. The actual career lawyers are arguing they can build a solid case, but they need more time. My fear is we'll see this thing rushed through and the changes will be cosmetic. And I do think Google's actions are a real problem. The most recent testimony before congress was pretty shocking. Facebook and Alphabet execs were basically admitting to anti-competitive behavior.
Ok,they are basically telling Google to share data about it's users and user preferences to it's rivals and probably also US Government.
So,first thing, spying on users is bad. It might be ok to collect user's information with their consent to improve the service(like Google is doing now),but isn't it written in Terms and conditions that those data will be used to improve services(not sharing/using them for personal gains)?
Also, is Microsoft sharing data of Windows users with other rivals too?
> but isn't it written in Terms and conditions that those data will be used to improve services(not sharing/using them for personal gains)?
Most T&Cs do not stand up once they get to court. Part of contract negotiation requires that the person agreeing, is capable of understanding and agreeing. Walls of text don't fit that definition.
Google tries very hard to work around limitations such as these in the "About these Terms" [0], with such gems as:
> If it turns out that a particular term is not valid or enforceable, this will not affect any other terms.
Which in itself may not always be legal to say. It isn't as simple as Google simply making statements. Unless the two involved in the contract, Google and the user, have an equal say in things, then the contract enters into grey areas of law. Where they have found themselves unprotected on occasion.
So the complaint is basically "Google isn't selling user data to us"? What is the intended end result, all user data should be free for purchase in order to maximize corporate profit?
This is the most concerning factor - Facbook reach is tremendous across it's media platform and most people still do not associate WhatsApp or Instagram as Facebook properties, even though they literally updated the apps to say "By Facebook" on them.
I do not know how to rate the governance or ethics of either company (FB/Alphabet.)
Does anyone know if this type of litigation is to do with the presidential election? Bytedance seemed transparently political at least. Is this too? Or does the DoJ just move insanely slowly AND with no consideration to political events?
It doesn't seem like the case itself is political, since we've been hearing about it for quite a while now. Most of the naked partisan attacks have been (thankfully) easily debunked; e.g. the supposed case of discarded ballots in a swing state, which turned out to be a manufactured hoax and was exposed as such pretty quickly.
The timing may be political though. We shall see when they file the case.
Maybe, instead of debating what the current laws are we should be debating how we regulate/govern/exist in the thing that is the reality we live in and see coming to fruition.
I totally think that if the feds(most powerful force we have today on the planet) decide you did something wrong they will find you did.
THAT IS REALLY WHAT IS AT ISSUE IN THIS SITUATION.
Citizens of the united states have no right to redress their grievances against the united states outside of the united states. EVEN WHEN THEY ARE AS LARGE AS GOOGLE.
Let me be clear. I AM NOT CALLING ON THE COMPLETE USURPATION OF THE USA'S LEGAL AUTHORITY.
I do think that certain issues that have a international legal consequence are going to be needed if the usa does not want to lose prowess in this area.
In all honesty google should just shutdown for 1,..2, ...3,... 7 days and extort the gov to actually operate in a legal manner.
> In all honesty google should just shutdown for 1,..2, ...3,... 7 days and extort the gov to actually operate in a legal manner.
Just speaking logically... considering how rarely another government doesn't suffer consequences for such shenanigans... how do you think that would go for a corporation? Long term, probably not well.
[+] [-] Waterluvian|5 years ago|reply
“... looking to disadvantage rivals such as Microsoft’s Bing by depriving them of the data about users and user preferences that they need...”
Anyone care to sum up the argument?
[+] [-] asdfasgasdgasdg|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ignostic|5 years ago|reply
Many of the details are not yet public. The individual investigations (some being conducted by states) are said to focus on multiple issues, but the one with the most discussion and evidence centers on the issue I described.
For example, google a flight you may take regularly, or just "LAX to JFK". Your first result after ads will probably be a Google widget. Can sites like Kayak or Expedia get that widget? No. Can they compete with Google showing real-time prices right in the SERP? No. It's the definition of anti-competitive behavior.
Google originally argued they don't advantage their own products. They've since admitted they do. Meanwhile they company is moving into more and more verticles and squeezing others out using its search engine as the weapon.
The vast majority of qualified traffic comes from search engines, and for my sites it's more like 95-97% Google. Many have argued the 90% market share figure is too low, because Yahoo and Microsoft include their internal searches to sound better. If Google decides to create a search widget competing with some function of my site, even if Google's version is really shitty, my business suffers badly. This isn't theoretical. Go Google "speed test." Your first result is a Google widget they added to search results. Ookla IMO has a much better product. But Google's widget is first for basically everyone who searches for a speed test. The M-Lab/Google test caps out for me well short of my real bandwidth. But I guarantee Ookla's traffic took a beating when Google decided to insert their own product at the top.
Unfortunately, Google has a lot of lawyers, and it's also reported that Barr is trying to rush this thing forward to provide a win for Trump. The actual career lawyers are arguing they can build a solid case, but they need more time. My fear is we'll see this thing rushed through and the changes will be cosmetic. And I do think Google's actions are a real problem. The most recent testimony before congress was pretty shocking. Facebook and Alphabet execs were basically admitting to anti-competitive behavior.
[+] [-] varbhat|5 years ago|reply
So,first thing, spying on users is bad. It might be ok to collect user's information with their consent to improve the service(like Google is doing now),but isn't it written in Terms and conditions that those data will be used to improve services(not sharing/using them for personal gains)?
Also, is Microsoft sharing data of Windows users with other rivals too?
[+] [-] shakna|5 years ago|reply
Most T&Cs do not stand up once they get to court. Part of contract negotiation requires that the person agreeing, is capable of understanding and agreeing. Walls of text don't fit that definition.
Google tries very hard to work around limitations such as these in the "About these Terms" [0], with such gems as:
> If it turns out that a particular term is not valid or enforceable, this will not affect any other terms.
Which in itself may not always be legal to say. It isn't as simple as Google simply making statements. Unless the two involved in the contract, Google and the user, have an equal say in things, then the contract enters into grey areas of law. Where they have found themselves unprotected on occasion.
[0] https://policies.google.com/terms?hl=en#toc-about
[+] [-] username90|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] feelthepress|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ergocoder|5 years ago|reply
But hey let's sue Google first to force them to share my personal data with its competitors. Wtf
[+] [-] rootsudo|5 years ago|reply
I do not know how to rate the governance or ethics of either company (FB/Alphabet.)
[+] [-] Traster|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pm90|5 years ago|reply
The timing may be political though. We shall see when they file the case.
[+] [-] m0zg|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] username90|5 years ago|reply
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/technology/google-eu-andr...
[+] [-] ilaksh|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sigstoat|5 years ago|reply
yacy was pretty meh when i tried dealing with it. though it did tend to turn up some stuff google didn’t (sometimes for the better, but mostly not)
[+] [-] plazmatic|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] throwawaymanbot|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] teclordphrack2|5 years ago|reply
Maybe, instead of debating what the current laws are we should be debating how we regulate/govern/exist in the thing that is the reality we live in and see coming to fruition.
I totally think that if the feds(most powerful force we have today on the planet) decide you did something wrong they will find you did.
THAT IS REALLY WHAT IS AT ISSUE IN THIS SITUATION.
Citizens of the united states have no right to redress their grievances against the united states outside of the united states. EVEN WHEN THEY ARE AS LARGE AS GOOGLE.
Let me be clear. I AM NOT CALLING ON THE COMPLETE USURPATION OF THE USA'S LEGAL AUTHORITY. I do think that certain issues that have a international legal consequence are going to be needed if the usa does not want to lose prowess in this area.
In all honesty google should just shutdown for 1,..2, ...3,... 7 days and extort the gov to actually operate in a legal manner.
[+] [-] csharptwdec19|5 years ago|reply
Just speaking logically... considering how rarely another government doesn't suffer consequences for such shenanigans... how do you think that would go for a corporation? Long term, probably not well.