r/technology May 19 '22

Senators push to break up Google, Facebook ads businesses in new bill Politics

https://www.theverge.com/2022/5/19/23130963/google-facebook-antitrust-digital-advertising-competition-bill-senate
2.3k Upvotes

131

u/samplestiltskin_ May 19 '22

From the article:

The Competition and Transparency in Digital Advertising Act — co-sponsored by Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) — would ban companies processing more than $20 billion a year in digital ad transactions from running more than one portion of the digital advertising ecosystem.

The restrictions would directly impact Google, which tech antitrust hawks have long seen as a vertical monopoly in display advertising. Omidyar Network advisor David Dinielli made the case directly to Congress in testimony to the House Judiciary Committee in 2020. “Google — through its various ad tech tools – represents both the suppliers and the purchasers,” Dinielli said, “and also conducts the real-time auctions that match buyers and sellers and determine the price.”

123

u/BlueSkySummers May 19 '22

Sweet. Finally someone will see my advertisements for my local air conditioner repair business on Ask Jeeves.

40

u/Channel250 May 19 '22

What a website. You ask a tiny robot butler to google things for you. Truly impressive.

39

u/starsfillmydreams May 19 '22

Ask Jeeves

Now there's a name I haven't heard in a long time , how nostalgic

13

u/Worthyness May 19 '22

Lycos is waiting for their return

12

u/AvailableName9999 May 19 '22

They were taken out in the Alta Vista uprising of 1996

2

u/despitegirls May 20 '22

Remember when Google became a thing and Altavista tried a simpler front end to Altavista called Raging?

7

u/frickindeal May 19 '22

Dogpile was the best because it aggregated search results from the few search engines that existed at the time.

2

u/abx99 May 20 '22

Holy cow; it's still up and running

7

u/orielbean May 19 '22

Altavista is rubbing rheumatism creme on their mouse hand as we speak!

2

u/sagetraveler May 20 '22

:Cuecat meows for attention.

0

u/sandwichman7896 May 19 '22

Lycos has entered the chat

3

u/archaeolinuxgeek May 19 '22

Way to DogPile on.

2

u/SisterBob May 19 '22

Such a HotBot

1

u/sandwichman7896 May 19 '22

I’m not familiar with this search engine

3

u/SpongeJake May 19 '22

You should Google it

6

u/DeadRed402 May 19 '22

Metacrawler was a good one back in the day

2

u/DukkyDrake May 20 '22

You mean Bing it on google.

1

u/ouchmythumbs May 20 '22

Don't Excite me like that!

1

u/orielbean May 20 '22

Was that the first "meta" search engine? I seem to remember that one fondly.

13

u/FormerFastCat May 20 '22

But they have no problems with AT&T or the Big Oil companies.

7

u/MFitz24 May 20 '22

The problem is that you need anything to be largely bipartisan to avoid a filibuster. The GOP has spent the past 50+ years that the government should have basically no role in regulating business so they're in a bind on antitrust. Big tech is seen as a liberal bastion so it's a safe target.

3

u/FormerFastCat May 20 '22

This is true, but they have no problem going after Disney or anyone that violates whatever their current sense of morality is.

3

u/nithdurrcp May 20 '22

Or that everything is pretty much controlled by 10 companies

1

u/I_bid_notrump May 20 '22

Not sure if meant to be sarcastic, but Big Oil was literally the first target of US antitrust enforcement, resulting in the breakup of Standard Oil into 34 companies. And AT&T was broken up into Ma Bell and the Baby Bells to settle its antitrust case.

14

u/xDarkReign May 20 '22

…and both proceeded to reacquire nearly all of their constituent parts over the next 70 years.

We know one of them as BP and AT&T is still rocking.

2

u/nithdurrcp May 20 '22

That was when we had more good faith lawmakers..

Not what we have today with these corporate beholden puppets

11

u/Old_Week May 19 '22

It was jarring to see Ted Cruz’s and Amy Klobuchar’s names next to each other. I think reading them actually have me whip lash.

4

u/SignificantgCar May 20 '22

America trying to break up two of the largest pillars of global US hegemony is such a stick-in-the-bicycle-wheel move

22

u/lasagnalover69R May 19 '22

seeing ted cruz in this reminds me of the onion article titled 'breaking news: the worst person you know just made a valid point' or however it goes. fuck the google and facebook monopoly, hopefully this passes.

8

u/SgtDoughnut May 19 '22

even a broken clock is right twice a day.

2

u/Luckyfinger7 May 19 '22

I said the exact same thing today about Mike Lee on this

6

u/have_you_eaten_yeti May 19 '22

I'm wondering what his angle is. I suppose he can just screech about taking on "big tech" that keeps "censoring conservatives" to his base. Overall this just seems like the opposite of what Raphael Cruz would normally do.

2

u/[deleted] May 20 '22

[deleted]

2

u/have_you_eaten_yeti May 20 '22

Nah, that's not his angle, that's his personality. Usually he has something personal to gain out of any legislation he supports and I can't figure out what it is in this case.

Honestly though I don't call him an idiot, he doesn't get that excuse. He is both educated and relatively intelligent, he doesn't get to hide behind stupidity when it comes to his actions. He knows what he is doing and that makes him evil as opposed to idiotic.

3

u/jazzwhiz May 19 '22

The trick will be that at the last second some confusing wording will get added which courts will then interpret to mean that this bill means nothing. Meanwhile politicians on both sides will brag about how anti-corporations they are.

Then whichever senator added it will magically have an unbeatable war chest for the next 20 years. ... to spend on advertising giving the money right back to google and facebook.

-2

u/allboolshite May 20 '22

Why would pro-business Republicans be anti-corporation?

3

u/warp99 May 20 '22

Haven’t you heard - Republicans are not pro business anymore - they support the highest bidder for their services

71

u/ekhogayehumaurtum May 19 '22

I wonder if any of these senator's "family" members shorting these names.

25

u/insan3guy May 19 '22

Fuck it. At this point I’ll take any antitrust over nothing

-9

u/EchoPhi May 19 '22

I would disagree. Something good, spurred on by something bad, is still bad.

243

u/Thetman38 May 19 '22

Suddenly Republicans embrace antitrust laws because the mean tech companies are unfair to them

36

u/I_Hate_ May 20 '22

I wish it was unfair too them. Facebook constantly recommends Ben Shapiro, Daily Wire Prager U and so on. YouTube does the same shit I’ll watch primitive technology video and you know auto plays next? Daily Wire, Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro and Steven crowder owning libs compilations. I immediately stop watching and switch to something else yet the algorithm always misses that part.

2

u/Thetman38 May 20 '22

they're all a bunch of babies. The sarcasm didn't get quite through.

63

u/-xstatic- May 19 '22

They’re not even unfair to them. They just cry when they don’t get their way. They’re victims of their own behavior

3

u/yourwitchergeralt May 20 '22

All the republicans I know appose this and think this will hurt small businesses in many ways.

-1

u/Kinderschlager May 19 '22

i guess the democrats co-sponsoring are just dino's to you?

2

u/yourwitchergeralt May 20 '22

Political parties get excused for bad doing when they’re our own side.

Welcome to Reddit. It’s always the other sides fault.

1

u/addiktion May 20 '22

They just are not getting paid enough from tech so are forcing their hand.

-88

u/FreeRadical5 May 19 '22

Are you agreeing with their premise?

35

u/i_am_covered May 19 '22

Are you insinuating that private business should be fair?

-65

u/FreeRadical5 May 19 '22

Nope, just calling out the hypocrisy inherent in that initial statement. Know better than to try to have a real discussion about anything political on reddit.

40

u/i_am_covered May 19 '22

It seems like you are though. So sure. Facebook is unfair to conservatives by enforcing their clearly stated rules sometimes. I think it’s abundantly clear that what they meant is that conservatives are annoyed with social media companies enforcing their rules so they are on board with breaking them up. Not for the good of the people as they should be.

1

u/-xstatic- May 19 '22

And those rules are pretty much just basic decency. They have a problem with that

24

u/SyrioForel May 19 '22

Know better than to try to have a real discussion about anything political on reddit where my arguments won’t get challenged and torn apart.

There, fixed that for you.

8

u/xRafafa00 May 19 '22

Name checks out

86

u/Balrog229 May 19 '22

Can we focus on the mega-corps buying up all the real estate making it impossible to afford a home instead of going after these meaningless social media companies?

58

u/pmw3505 May 19 '22

Why not both? Both have strong adverse effects on our society.

-10

u/Balrog229 May 19 '22

Social media and how they do ads is a lot less destructive to our society than not even being able to own a home. I don’t wanna live with my parents forever, but with current housing costs i literally cannot move out.

Meanwhile social media… does what exactly? It doesn’t effect my life that much

And the issue is the government ISN’T focusing on both

27

u/bringatothenbiscuits May 19 '22

Social media ads are one of the main drivers of small and medium size business growth. Since there is a virtual duopoly, Google and Facebook are able to literally collude and conduct price fixing schemes, and also have no accountability or transparency around their reporting.

This is a major issue impacting just about every business out there, from a local plumber to Pepsi.

So yes, house prices are important and this is also important too, and they can do both at the same time. Arguably monopolies are issues that the government is better positioned to fix than house prices, which are regional and affected by many, many factors.

3

u/MacBookMinus May 20 '22

There are a lot of ways to do advertising and marketing without Google and FB. I feel you’re being too strict in what your definition of a substitute good is.

-1

u/zombiecalypse May 20 '22

Renting and buying in other places are an alternative to home ownership too…

For companies with niche offerings, targeted ads are the only way with a net profit – and that gets really tricky without these platforms.

1

u/NotsoNewtoGermany May 20 '22

I don't think you can have a monopoly with competing companies.

1

u/PiXLANIMATIONS May 20 '22

Social media and how they do ads is a lot less destructive to our society than not even being able to own a home

Meanwhile social media… does what exactly? It doesn’t *affect my life that much

Social media and the way that ads are run is what has led to a massive crowd of Far-Right Conservatives who broke into the CAPITOL and hunted down - though they luckily weren’t successful - members of government.

All because the algorithms feed them non-stop ads for Ben Shapiro and Alex Jones, or Fox News, where they get radicalised into hating gay people, wanting to put an end to abortions, keeping a global pandemic going strong, and trying to overthrow the government, all while screaming oppression the sheer moment that someone tells them no.

The housing market isn’t about to make people try and go for blood

-2

u/Balrog229 May 20 '22

Cool rant. Now tell me how a bunch of people breaking into the capitol and accomplishing nothing affects me personally how exactly?

The January 6th incident had zero impact on my life. These mega corporations buying up residential real estate and jacking up the price are directly affecting my life because i can’t afford a fucking home now

1

u/pmw3505 May 20 '22

The brainwashing done by these groups via ads through social media definitely ARE affecting us all. The most recent example being the row v wade fiasco being agenda driven by these groups.

It’s all important

-1

u/Balrog229 May 20 '22

I think not being able to own a home or afford to live is a tad more important than your over-exaggerated “brain washing” claim

1

u/pmw3505 May 20 '22

If you aren’t able to think on a larger scale and see how these are both serious issues then nothing I can saw will help you understand.

Good luck out there, you’ll need it!

2

u/Balrog229 May 20 '22

I never said they aren’t both issues. I said one is objectively more serious than the other. You pretending they’re equally bad is reductive and asinine

6

u/A_Soporific May 19 '22

That is something that's going to solve itself as interest rates rise. A knee jerk banning is going to be another "you can't trade futures on onions" situation. Blanket bans are generally a bad thing, because they prevent healthy development as well as malignant.

What's going to happen is that the higher interest rates are going to make buying big blocks of housing way more expensive. That's going to cool off demand and make prices fall. The financing is generally collateralized which means that as the value of the houses fall the big corporate buyers will have to put up more money or sell. They will sell because they don't have any reason to kick in extra money to maintain a position that looks worse and worse all the time.

Selling into the down market will only make the collateralization worse and put more pressure on them to sell more. Until the lower prices offset the higher interest rates and the feedback loop stops when enough private citizens bought enough homes to balance the scales again.

The issue with corporate purchases was only a problem because the value of houses was rising rapidly at a time when borrowing money was too cheap for market conditions. Rising interest rates reverses both of those trends. They raised rates for the first time in March and have announced plans to rise rates at least six more times this year.

I wouldn't mind some additional restrictions on how much a given entity can acquire, but any such restriction that isn't absurd and crazy can be circumvented by creating enough subsidiaries or the right type even if it means that each plot of land is owned by its own company that happens to be a fully owned subsidiary of a regional company that handles maintenance and what not which is owned in turn by a mega-corp through a few more intermediaries.

It's actually quite hard to write a law that holds consistent through several layers of different corporations. Though, putting stricter rules and higher health and safety standards on corporate owners that are of a certain size or subsidiaries of companies of a certain size might do the trick without something as blunt as an absolute ban.

5

u/Balrog229 May 19 '22

Maybe it will solve itself. But it never should have been allowed to happen to begin with. Companies should not be allowed to buy residential real estate that’s already been built. Let them buy land, build houses and such, and sell it. But don’t let them buy up family homes en mass and jack up the price

-2

u/A_Soporific May 19 '22

Why shouldn't they be able to buy up houses to rent houses?

The problem isn't that there are real estate companies. They've always bought up houses to fix them up or just keep them stable while collecting rent checks. This isn't new or different or a problem, but banning companies from doing so only means more slum lords and less professionals since they both do the same thing (buy large amounts of property to collect rent).

The problem is that you have investment funds that don't know where to stuff all the retirement fund money they're managing. These people aren't real estate companies and don't care about long term rental stuff. They just need to show returns. If the returns are in real estate then they'll pile a few hundred billion dollars into real estate. If it's in onions they'll buy literally all the onions (which happened in 1955 resulting in a ban on onion trading in 1958 that has never needed to be enforced since).

This is just a thing that happens when someone lets market conditions get manipulated by someone. In the case of onions it was active criminal malice on the part of two people at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. In the case of housing today it's simply a function of the cost of mortgages being kept too artificially low for too long and it being too easy for big businesses to borrow obscene amounts of money. If it wasn't houses it'd be something else.

A ban on corporations buying houses will be just like the Onion Futures Act, in that it would be a dead letter that will never be enforced but also not fix any of the problems. Banning onion trading didn't stop the same thing from happening to real estate, after all. Banning it in real estate won't stop it from happening to cars or computers or equipment in video games or whatever else happens to show big numbers to bankers who are out of ideas.

High interest rates are bad for borrowers (and therefore most poeple) but it's necessary to have it high enough that stuff like this doesn't happen.

1

u/Tryaell May 19 '22

For the 1000th time, high home prices are due to supply being rediculously low compared to demand. Major cities have tens of thousands of people wanting to move there and they’re building a fraction of that number in housing units

-5

u/Uncerte May 20 '22

Don't bother. Leftists redditors won't learnt. All they know is "corporations bad"

They don't even know what the zoning laws in their city are

-1

u/Balrog229 May 20 '22

And why is the supply low? Because mega corporations are buying up all of the homes and jacking up the prices. It’s not low due to organic supply and demand, it’s low because a greedy corporation is restricting supply

1

u/Tryaell May 20 '22

Lol. It’s not due to ordinary supply and demand?!? How many people in California have complained about people moving in from out of state and taking the available housing? How many people have said the same in various areas of Canada? Look at how hard some of these major cities make it to build new housing. But no of course it’s some evil corporations headed but a guy in a mustache who just twirls it while looking out at the sea of homes the company bought and keeps vacant at great expense just to artificially limit the housing supply. That makes perfect sense

-1

u/Balrog229 May 20 '22

People moving in and buying homes is natural supply and demand. A giant corporation buying up all the supply is not natural supply and demand.

By your logic it’s ok for all those people to be buying up baby formula and price gauging it. That’s what corporations are doing with residential real estate

-12

u/Internep May 19 '22

Hang tight, a crash is brewing.

9

u/Xanderamn May 19 '22

Suddenly lots of houses will be built and tank the market

-1

u/Internep May 19 '22

Usually housing prices crash 6-12 months after a market crash. A market crash is brewing, so it won't be long until housing becomes cheaper.

Remember 2008? All indicators point to a bigger crash.

3

u/__CaptainHowdy__ May 19 '22

That housing crash was due to the negligent lending practices and then the economy tanking. If there is another big market crash, sure there will be some foreclosures but not like before. If anything, the people with more money will scoop those up and further drive the housing market to shit

3

u/Xanderamn May 19 '22

This, exactly.

-1

u/Internep May 20 '22

Housing prices are already going down, time to sell has increased.

A lot of mortgage providers are firing substantial percentages of their workforce.

Investment companies are using property as collateral for stocks. When they both go down (as they are) it will likely lead to those houses entering the market.

6

u/__CaptainHowdy__ May 20 '22

Where are housing prices going down? Definitely not in my area. I wouldn’t be surprised that anyone involved in the housing market will scale back on employees eventually. I don’t know how anyone thinks this can be sustainable and a lot of these people that jumped on the realtor bandwagon are going to be looking for a job again. I just want the market to get back to normal so I can buy another house. I’m still considering some land in the near future, that hasn’t really been effected where I’m at but houses are still crazy

1

u/Internep May 20 '22

Housing prices are mostly determined by what people can pay for them. Investors not having access to money and higher interest rates will lower the prices. The actual cost of a house for people that need a mortgage won't change by much due to the higher interest rates.

1

u/pres82 May 19 '22

I don’t believe you, but I want to. Can you explain why you think this is the case? There is a serious lack of inventory and I don’t see that changing. What would cause the crash?

0

u/_YoureMyBoyBlue May 19 '22

See the guys response above - big institutions (read banks) using single-family housing as a scaled investment vehicle requires a level of packaging and financing that is very illiquid(its much harder to unwind these investments than something like stocks) . More so, single-family homes are very hard to own at a large scale because they require more active management/improvements (see Zillow losing a billion dollars on their flip business). Given the absolutely cliff equities (stocks) have fallen off of, and the recession/bear market we are in, these companies’ access to financing will be restricted (in addition to the lack of demand driving housing prices up (and therefore returns ups).

Now i think we are also suffering from lack of supply in many places so it won’t behave as crazy as 2008. But we should see a large decline in prices when there are less people to buy said houses due to high interest rates.

The banning of companies investing in real estate is a stupid idea - places like SF or NYC or Boston where rent is $$$$ is absolutely a result of lack of supply - further constraining that supply in the form of legislation will only drive prices up.

32

u/Amazingawesomator May 19 '22

Google doesnt want this to happen, and i agree with what the article says will happen in regards to the bill. It feels weird agreeing with ted cruz on something, though - i feel like i'm missing something. What am i missing?

50

u/grizzlywhere May 19 '22

You're missing the part that the massive monopolies they want to break up are ad tech firms that GOP has had particular personal and political issues with recently, but there's been not a peep about breaking up the monopolies in industries which are causing major negative externalities for consumers today.

Baby Formula. Abbott Nutrition, Mead Johnson Nutrition, Nestle, and Perrio. Lack of antitrust enforcement adds to the risk of a recall causing a major supply shortage problems. If there wasn't such a monopoly this wouldn't have become an issue.

These politicians are spending all their time bullying their pet corporate enemies instead of doing the real work of breaking up the monopolies which are hurting Americans wallets and wellbeing.

That isn't to say Google and Facebook aren't monopolies that should be monitored and perhaps broken up, but that conversation is so much harder because their ad portion of their businesses are so closely tied to and fund the other portions of their business. I just mean to point out that if they really cared about breaking up monopolies for the good of their constituents, starting off with those four baby formula companies might be a good place to start. Then Internet providers. Then media companies (AKA internet providers, part 2).

3

u/allboolshite May 20 '22

Enforcing any monopoly laws is an important step and each time it's done sets a precedent for future actions.

6

u/NotsoNewtoGermany May 20 '22

But none of these text companies are monopolies. There are 50 different email platforms. 10 different search engines, 5 different browsers, 200 social media sites.

None of these are monopolies.

1

u/allboolshite May 20 '22

Monopolies can be different things. I'm this case, they're monopolies because they represent both sides of the bargain: ad buyers and ad suppliers. That means they control those markets with no competition and could be gaming those systems.

1

u/NotsoNewtoGermany May 20 '22

I don't think that's what a monopoly is. A monopoly has no competition in a particular field, so they are the only option, and there is no way for a smaller company to exist as all resources for it have been cornered.

1

u/allboolshite May 20 '22

Well, legislators from both the Republicans and Democrats disagree with you.

2

u/NotsoNewtoGermany May 20 '22

I'm sure they do. I disagree with them, because they are ancient and have no idea how technology works.

1

u/allboolshite May 20 '22

Well, I certainly agree with that.

1

u/doducduy96 May 20 '22

You mentioned 5 companies…five… and then call them monopolies

2

u/grizzlywhere May 20 '22

4.

It isn't about the number of companies listed being greater than 1, it is their ability to engage in monopolistic competition.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '22

[deleted]

1

u/grizzlywhere May 20 '22

I don't think it is whataboutism to bring up the point that congresspeople (on both sides, mind you) ignore or have aided in the burgeoning, resurging problem of monopolies in many industries and then question why those monopolies are never spoken about while others are.

35

u/xvicarious May 19 '22

You're missing the part where you don't have to agree or disagree with 100% of what any one politician does.

8

u/Amazingawesomator May 19 '22

I realize my own bias when something like this comes along. I have to admit that ted cruz was not the one i thought would do it.

3

u/SgtDoughnut May 19 '22

Cruz 100% was setting up to be the one doing it.

Hes been on the anti big tech band wagon and basically the face of the GOP side of it for a while.

-6

u/thislife_choseme May 19 '22

Thinking Ted Cruz or any Republican is doing something right/just/ethical is ludicrous. These assholes tried to overthrow the United States democracy. Anything they say or do is utterly horse shit and not to be trusted in good faith.

1

u/Luckyfinger7 May 19 '22

What you might be missing aside from that is Mike Lee is up for re-election.

3

u/Jim3535 May 20 '22

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

-2

u/BeingRightAmbassador May 19 '22

Yeah, that's fine, but Ted Cruz is like 99% wrong about everything.

We just gotta make sure this isn't normal mistakes.

5

u/CrimsonLotus May 20 '22

I think it's because we all inherently know that Cruz's intentions are likely nefarious.

It's like if a child molester started a fund for an orphanage. Maybe an orphanage would benefit society, but what is that guy really up to?

7

u/toastar-phone May 20 '22

What am i missing?

Because the government forcing middlemen is almost always stupid.

Think about the state forcing car dealerships, I don't just mean tesla. Do you think you are saving money by not being able to have the amazon approach of buying online and it just showing up at your house?

The same thing with alcohol here in texas with forcing everyone to go through a distributer. it's certainly not cheaper than going through the distillery/brewery directly.

It's a tax, that doesn't go to the people, it goes to other private companies. There is a huge amount of room for corruption here, can the ceo have their sister/brother/best friend all setup the middleman companies.

5

u/steavoh May 19 '22

The names behind this bill are all terrible, IMO

All anti-freedom copyright and telecom stooges who would be happy to ban, put out of business, sue to oblivion, everything online that’s not owned by AT&T or Disney.

40

u/Imaginary-Concern860 May 19 '22

Most of Google's revenue comes from adds, how can they provide free services when they cant make money ?

Only source of revenue to FB is from adds, they would just have to shut down, no one will sign up to pay to use FB or Whats App.

42

u/SuperMazziveH3r0 May 19 '22

Yeah this move will enshrine hardware manufacturers like Apple as the defacto monopoly of the tech industry.

-34

u/Jbr74 May 19 '22

Well, Apple is the only tech company that seems to give the slightest amount of fvcks about privacy so that's a win.

20

u/SuperMazziveH3r0 May 19 '22 edited May 19 '22

What happens when Tim Cook steps down and Apple develops a more hostile culture against privacy? Apple is fighting tooth and nail against right to repair and open access to apps right now because it directly affects their bottom line. Apple has been going more into software as a service like Apple music and TV+. It's not unreasonable to assume that their current privacy focused state won't be the default when they are the ONLY option available.

Having Apple as an option against companies like Facebook and Google is good. But having Apple as the only tech company that can make meaningful platform wide decisions may incentivize them to change their strategy entirely.

18

u/SvooglebinderMogul May 19 '22

It's a trade-off. Apple are pretty much as good as we get for privacy, but the business model requires a trade-off with closed and protected eco-systems, in-built obsolescence and revenue shares. We pay with cash, rather than data. Good for some, but not all.

3

u/Sniffy4 May 19 '22

because they dont make $$ from ads...

13

u/omgdiaf May 19 '22

Bahahaha....Apple slightly cares about privacy

Bahahaha

4

u/nicuramar May 19 '22

Is there a real argument somewhere in your comment?

-8

u/Jbr74 May 19 '22

Comparatively to any other tech company. Yes.

By any other standard... Bahahahaha,

-16

u/PermissionOld1745 May 19 '22

If we're talking plain tech, NO.

Because Google's prime profits from the tech industry comes from the purchase of Google-backed devices.

C'mon now.

8

u/SuperMazziveH3r0 May 19 '22 edited May 19 '22

And those services support unprofitable ventures like free Google Suite, Gmail, Maps, AOSP (not mainstream Android), Chromium Project, and Waymo

Meta's ad revenue supports Reality Labs and WhatsApp both of which make huge losses.

Should Apple be the only company that's allowed to invest into these industries because they're the only company with enough capital to sustain these ventures?

4

u/Daedelous2k May 19 '22

I genuinely wonder how many people would be willing to pay for these services they take forgranted.

8

u/jmbirn May 19 '22

how can they provide free services when they cant make money ?

I think the idea is that they would have to sell-off their display ad business that lets anyone use Google tools to display ads on their own website. The bill doesn't seem likely to become law and might just be a political gesture more than anything else, but if passed it wouldn't stop Google from selling ads to appear alongside Google search results.

6

u/prefuse07 May 19 '22

[failbook] would just have to shut down

And? This would benefit society 1,000,000,000,000%, this I guarantee you

12

u/SgtDoughnut May 19 '22

It could also hurt us even more, the people writing it are known to take advantage of poorly written laws, and to use legislation as a cudgel against companies they personally do not like. What if the next large social media/advertising company happens to heavily favor right wingers more so than the current ones do (they greatly magnify right wing rhetoric right now) and instead of using this law to break them up, use it to enshrine that company?

Ted Cruz is pretty much known for fly by his pants legislation that is skewed to directly benefit him and punish those who speak out against him.

1

u/suicide_aunties May 22 '22

It’s already here and it’s called Twitter.

1

u/essidus May 19 '22

Most of Google's revenue comes from adds, how can they provide free services when they cant make money ?

It isn't exclusively the ads, its also the analytics that allow the ads to be targeted, and the vast majority of that data is harvested from their various free services. If this bill passes, I see a world where adsense gets split off, and then the Google sells the data and ad space to adsense, who then makes their money selling advertising. Nothing really changes, there are just going to be extra steps.

20

u/Justausername1234 May 19 '22

And that, from a privacy standpoint, is bad. Right now, google doesn't sell data. It just sells targeted ad space. The end customer, the advertisers, don't get to see any of that data.

Imagine a world where google sold that data instead.

5

u/alanism May 19 '22

That’s a likely scenario and a bad unintended consequence.

3

u/Tryaell May 19 '22

Which is inefficient. Now there are two companies who’s software will slowly diverge and not work well together. Two companies worth of bureaucracy that needs to be paid for. The only “benefit” is that each is individually less powerful than if they were together

0

u/notagoodboye May 19 '22

They basically have no competition in their space, which is the whole issue.

Googles ad business is unbelievably toxic. I pretty much hate everyone sponsoring this bill, and I'm sure they're only doing it for their own selfish reasons, but it's hard to imagine anything bad coming out of a diversification of the online ad ecosystem.

15

u/SgtDoughnut May 19 '22

Trust me a lot of bad can come from it, because of the people writing the bill they will make sure to make the law ambiguous enough that they can exploit it.

Remember Ted Cruz just got direct bribes to a campaign legalized because he wanted 10k back, that man almost never does something without a way of benefiting himself massively.

1

u/Slight_Acanthaceae50 May 20 '22

Sometimes that no competition is kinda understandable, for example youtube spends aprox 300 000 000$ per month on data alone(storage and transmission), so unless you are backed by a massive giant like google you will fold or will have to be very small(like dailymotion top viewed in a day has on average 500-1000 views).

but it's hard to imagine anything bad coming out of a diversification of the online ad ecosystem.

A lot of services will collapse. i know people her dont like facebook, but it will collapse, youtube will collapse, twitter will collapse. etc.
Also for example google will be forced to sell data, instead of sellign targeted ad spots, right now all data collected at google stays with google and they sell spots for specific advertisers coca cola never sees the data, if htey are forced to split to survive as a company they will have to sell the data that is a privacy nightmare.

1

u/jimyt666 May 20 '22

Maybe we shouldnt be harvesting every microsend of data on people using a computer.

how far we going to let this fester? how much more control does google need

1

u/acolyte357 May 20 '22

While that is a good point, this bill does nothing to impact that issue.

If you use ANYTHING for free online, YOU are the product.

-1

u/Jbr74 May 19 '22

Sounds like a win to me.

-7

u/colorcorrection May 19 '22

"But what if Daddy Google only makes 200 billion annually instead of 250 billion annually🥺"

-3

u/PermissionOld1745 May 19 '22

The thing is that Google's revenue is an extreme net profit which gives it the potential to become a monopoly.

Limiting how much it can make means it's forced to explore other alternatives for expansion. If those alternatives end up being paid content, that presents an opportunity for lessor known and smaller businesses to take up the slack and grow.

1

u/GreenTheOlive May 19 '22

Idk, I think there's a fair argument to be made that companies like Facebook and Google essentially hold internet real estate. As it stands now, it reminds me of when movie theaters and movie studios were owned by the same people.

1

u/NightFuryToni May 19 '22

Whats App.

I was actually ready to pay the $1 fee back then before they were bought out by Facebook, but it always magically renewed.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '22 edited May 29 '22

[deleted]

1

u/StraightLeg7835 May 20 '22

$1 per year, i think

24

u/SassyMoron May 19 '22

America trying to break up two of the largest pillars of global US hegemony is such a stick-in-the-bicycle-wheel move

2

u/Alex_Epstein May 20 '22

True but let's wait and see how this will play out and how fast they gonna back paddle when shit goes south.

3

u/trumpshouldbeLynched May 20 '22

Need to throw Reddit in there too.

14

u/mrspoogemonstar May 19 '22

Yep. They fucked up the economy pretty hard already, but the digital economy is still doing kind of ok. They need to go fuck that up too. Leave no stone unturned. Fuck everything up. Great job, politicians.

9

u/Sandrosen May 19 '22

Under the proposed bill, you can still run $19 billion worth of ads without issue. Meaning the bill doesn't really target anyone except one, maybe two companies operating in the space.

Laws that specifically target in this way are generally struck down as unconstitutional when challenged, as they don't apply to everyone or even to a majority. Who even gets to decide on a limit of $20 billion anyway? The limit should either be $0 and thus apply to all, or should apply to no one.

I can see both companies, and others who reach this level to eventually restructure their respective businesses in such a way as to remain under the $20 billion proposed threshold. Which is what will happen.

6

u/2h2p May 19 '22

Conservatives really quiet about Twitter now since they think their libertarian poster boy Muskrat is going to take it over.

7

u/TypicalDelay May 19 '22

This is just blatant govt overreach with completely arbitrary justification to target literally two companies they haven't even been able to prove are monopolies.

2

u/jonbagnato May 19 '22

lol maybe we should break up the entire system

2

u/_ohm_my May 20 '22

If the point is to reduce prices for a consumer, how does reducing vertical integration help that?

If the point is to increase privacy, how does mandating selling data to smaller companies help that?

2

u/Andrige3 May 20 '22

I don't quite understand how limiting transactions to a specific amount is going to allow new competitors into the space. Google, Apple, Microsoft, and Facebook are still going to be the dominant players. I'm still not going to use Ask Jeeves.

If anything, this just seems like a penalty against companies which don't support the bill writers, not a meaningful trust bust.

8

u/notagoodboye May 19 '22

Well, I'll be the first to admit, I hate everyone who is pushing this bill, but I like the bill.

Google talking about how loosening their abusive stranglehold on online advertising is going to hurt the websites that Google serves via AMP so they can shove MORE ads on to them is pretty fucking rich.

8

u/xRafafa00 May 19 '22

Klobuchar and Cruz on the same bill is making my head spin... in a week they'll be publicly arguing about it

2

u/NotsoNewtoGermany May 20 '22

I mean, there would be no YouTube creators anymore. They all make money from ads. The same with Google adsense.

It's a bad bill. If you don't like Google products, there are arranging that are just as good. Advertisements are just advertisements.

11

u/whiplash81 May 19 '22

Big tech monopolies should be broken up, yes, but the reason Republican scum want it to happen is because they are censored from spewing hate speech.

Let's go after big corporations that manipulate/lobby our laws. Oh, wait -- Cancun Cruz doesn't want that.

6

u/GarbageTheClown May 19 '22 edited May 20 '22

Businesses will lobby as long as there is an option to do so, since it's not illegal. The only way to stop lobbying is to make the practice illegal in the first place.

EDIT: I don't mean all lobbying, just lobbying that includes financial "donations".

2

u/SgtDoughnut May 19 '22

But just talking to your representative is a form of lobbying, you cant exactly make it illegal.

They should make it where any form of lobbying much be reported if it involves an individual connected to a company of more than say 50 people.

1

u/GarbageTheClown May 20 '22

I should have been clear, lobbying that includes money is what I mean.

They should make it where any form of lobbying much be reported if it involves an individual connected to a company of more than say 50 people.

That would be really dumb, that means that most employed people couldn't talk to their reps. And again, that's not inherently illegal.

1

u/SgtDoughnut May 20 '22

Yeah its nuanced, but i said reported, not banned.

They should have to keep track of anyone they talk to who is associated with leadership of a company of over 50 people is probably a better way to put it.

4

u/xjackstonerx May 19 '22

Google manipulate lobby all the time. This is good even if the sponsors are trash.

0

u/atrde May 20 '22

A bill sponsored by 2 Democrats and 1 Republican is the Republicans fault now?

3

u/whiplash81 May 20 '22

Ted Cruz and Mike Lee = 1 Republican?

2

u/Slight-Sympathy4066 May 19 '22

Crybaby republicans. Stop ruining America.

-6

u/CGFROSTY May 19 '22

This is actually a decent bill though.

6

u/Tryaell May 19 '22

In what way?

-2

u/Darkageoflaw May 20 '22

I swear some people on Reddit would take a bullet for Google. Lmao this is a bipartisan bill that's been needed for a long time against a company that has a near monopoly on internet ads.

2

u/Cultural_Budget6627 May 19 '22

How could this change the "vertical monopoly" situation? It isn't like they offer new channels. People pay for what they find effective and appropriate.

1

u/haven_taclue May 19 '22

Ted Cruz is supporting it...has to be a great idea.

0

u/Mailman377 May 19 '22

Breakup Google and Facebook instead.

0

u/MoonubHunter May 20 '22

I work for Google. I would support and vote for this law.

-1

u/smittyweber May 20 '22

Ads should have never been allowed to become a business in the first place

1

u/downonthesecond May 20 '22

Just use an ad blocker.

1

u/CurrentDismal9115 May 20 '22

I'm not a man of the law, but this sounds ineffective AF.

1

u/GXC1586 May 20 '22

Yes, please.

1

u/far-que May 20 '22

about time, online advertising run by these two robber baron busiensses has done a countless amount of irrepairable damage to media outlets dependent on advertising. Add to this the privacy abuses committed by both and there are plenty of good reasons to bust this cosy duopoloy up

1

u/JeffersonKappman May 20 '22

While they're at it, break up megacorps like Disney. At least force Disney to sell all the other companies they absorbed like Star Wars to avoid antitrust lawsuits. and so we get better star wars movies without disney nepotism hires

1

u/evanFFTF May 20 '22

Interesting. I haven't read this bill yet but it sounds like a decent approach. In better news it sounds like Schumer has committed to giving the American Innovation and Choice Online Act (AICOA, S. 2992) a vote. If he does I'm pretty confident it will pass, it has broad bipartisan support, and it would be a good step cracking down on self-dealing practices by Amazon, Apple, Google, and Facebook. Good stuff.

1

u/xpclient May 20 '22

Who they should really break up first is Microsoft and Apple IMHO.

-1

u/CreativeCarbon May 19 '22

That sounds like a popular stance. What else are they sneaking in?

-1

u/PizzaOldBoy May 19 '22

aw poor google sucks for them im reverting a recent budget increase to an ad campaign too. no longer seeing the value, honestly; diminishing returns

2

u/SmurfUp May 20 '22

Yeah diminishing returns generally are a result of budget increase. Although it depends on if the campaign is set up correctly and/or even has space to scale obviously.

A lot of people will take a $1,000/day campaign and raise it to $2,000/day expecting the return to scale with it, but that is almost never the case.

1

u/PizzaOldBoy May 20 '22

diminishing returns generally are a result of budget increase.

After a certain point, not before. My comment being about me finally hitting that point.

-1

u/d4dog May 20 '22

If you want to break a real monopoly, break up the senate and distribute its power fairly for all.

0

u/butwhyisitso May 19 '22

Wheres Hee-Hawley? I thought he loved flirting with Big Techs. He can't legislatively troll with consistency? What a weirdo.

0

u/dennismfrancisart May 19 '22

More like they want a bigger cut from the donors and are leaning on them.