You thought Google would escape my ire today, didn’t you?
A coalition of attorneys general representing 50 US states and territories today announced a long-awaited joint probe into antitrust complaints against one of the biggest tech companies in the world, Google.
The office of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is spearheading the bipartisan investigation, which is beginning with the search and digital advertising markets. Google “dominates all aspects of advertising on the Internet and searching on the Internet,” Paxton told reporters during a press conference.
Is anybody surprised by this? Google’s dominance in search is bad enough as it is, but the company’s real monopolistic power comes not from search, but from its more nebulous online advertising business. It’s not nearly as sexy as App Store manipulation or bundling Internet Explorer with Windows, but it’s just as potentially detrimental to the overall market as they are.
“It’s not nearly as sexy as App Store manipulation or bundling Internet Explorer with Windows, but it’s just as potentially detrimental to the overall market as they are.’
In what way? Let’s be perfectly honest here. The “Market “you’re talking about here has been leeching off Google for years now, in fact one can say they’ve been doing it ever since Google introduced their search engine and Youtube.
If Google had some sort of contract (paid) with people to prove some kind of search and digital advertising service to them there might a point to be made here, but if they’re basically leeching off Google’s search engine for their advertising revenue and other things (which most of them are) then they’re pretty much SOL.
‘
‘
yoko-t,
What are you talking about? This needs an explanation to say the least.
First, so no one gets confused, yoko-t is very wrong. Companies are not leeching off of google. In the case of search and youtube, they create content that Google sells advertising on. Google gets a cut off the top of ad revenues, sometimes without the complete willing consent of the content creators as in the case of news search results. If you sign up for youtube or adwords, there is absolutely a contract that specifies ad revenue. But even that isn’t the point. Google is a monopoly in several areas and has used that power to expand into new markets, to the detriment of consumers.
Bill Shooter of Bul,
I’d say not only to the detriment of consumers. Google, probably more than any other company in recent history, has taken advertiser money away from professional journalism. Today’s newsrooms are a hollow shell of their former selves and are now completely reliant on ‘journalism as a service’ factories including the likes of sinclair, which has transformed journalism into dangerously concentrated echo chambers.
It’s ridiculously comical…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo
So although some people may not care about traditional media, there’s no denying that google (and facebook) fortunes have come at their expense. I don’t know how to put it delicately, but even here on osnews there’s no original content anymore other than our comments, which are heavily steered around articles that follow large corporations almost exclusively.
The thing about coverage is, sometimes having good or bad coverage can be less important than getting any coverage at all. Thom will criticizes apple (and google and facebook) week after week, year after year, etc, but I’m not sure if he realizes that coverage could be far more balanced by making a bigger effort to cover the smaller fish than by keeping the big fish in the headlines in perpetuity. Look at how much coverage apple gets, even when it is to criticize them, this keeps the focus on apple constantly. An idea would be to establish a quota to limit articles about apple (and others) to no more than once or twice max every month. 12 articles per year on one company should be more than enough. I think when you try to fight the echo chamber is when you realize just how much we’ve been a part of it.
But alas, fighting the tide may not be very rewarding, which is why so many people take the easy path and things are the way they are.
Agreed. I am, however, not sure who exactly to blame for the downfall of journalism. Yes Google gets some blame. But, if it wasn’t them it would have been someone else. The papers wen way way too slow to provide a good digital product. I literally had a mulityear conversation going with the publisher of one of the largest US newspapers, begging them to make a digital version available online for subscribers ( basically a paywalled version). He wouldn’t do it, but kept promising to look into it.
Bill Shooter of Bul,
I get that, and even though you may be right it still feels like a cop out of sorts.
Yeah I’m sure similar discussions have taken place everywhere. In hindsight we know they made mistakes, but even many of those that made the transition are financially strained nevertheless. On the whole, the trend has been towards layoffs and closures.
It’s a shame because some where great at what they did, take the much loved byte magazine for instance…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byte_(magazine)
Or linux journal, which I spend a good deal of time reading articles and playing with distros distributed via DVD.
https://www.linuxjournal.com/
It’s not like they haven’t tried to reinvent themselves, but I fear that this economy just doesn’t favor this kind of detailed oriented work any longer.
https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/happy-new-year-linux-journal-alive
It obviously sucks for the journalists/tech authors/etc who are loosing their means of living, but IMHO it also sucks for us as readers who loose their insight, thoughtfulness, and creativity and end up with sloppy & generic content instead.
Let’s not forget that osnews itself faces similar existential threats. I’m always happy to come up with new ideas to make the site better, but all the ideas mean squat if you don’t have the funds to run it. Raising revenue while remaining independent is the real challenge.
These changes aren’t unique to publishing, most of us in ecommerce are seeing the same kinds of hyper consolidation with small companies and developers taking a smaller piece of the pie as amazon’s share keeps growing.
Uhhh did you not see that leaked Google internal memo where they talked about using their power to steer the outcomes of elections by controlling the narrative? Its really not that hard to manipulate people if everything they search for comes up with results cherry picked to support the narrative you are pushing.
And before you say “herp derp its the right wingers complaining herp derp” afraid not as it has been shown Google is burying people on both sides (along with FB who is also being investigated) who don’t toe the corporate line or follow the Silicon Valley narrative. For examples Rose Of Dawn (a trans woman) to Blair White (also trans) to Jimmy Dore (former The Young Turks reporter) have all been demonetized and “memory holed” (where they go out of the way to make sure your content does not show up in searches) because they dared to not follow the corporate narrative and in the case of Dore called out Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Twitter for their bad treatment of workers.
So yes Google deserves to be looked into, as does AAPL, FB, and TWTR, because it is so easy for these mega corps to push a corporate agenda with their huge social media footprint.
I’m not sure what Internal memo you are referring to,
I think the examples you provided of Google demonetizing people on both sides shows that its doing a decent job of applying sensible rules effectively. But Should google be regulated, yes, yes it should. But we also have to make sure that it doesn’t end up getting regulated so much that we have to include the terrible examples you mentioned. They’ve made some bad decisions, but also some really good ones. I think they’re probably doing a better job than the government could.
Look up “project veritas Google 2020” and you’ll find the page where they have both internal memos talking about how their goal should be “to not allow a repeat of 2016” (aka not let Trump win by using their power to influence the election) as well as hidden camera footage where those inside Google talk about setting up ‘single point of truth’ for definition of news across Google products,” AKA steer the narrative using their control of search and ads.
Frankly I don’t give a crap if you are on the left or the right having a megacorp decide “what is the truth” and use their control of search to make sure “their truth” is pushed? Is some scary AF 1984 style crap that needs to be shut down ASAP and many on the left agree 110% because what companies like GOOG and FB are pushing is not a left/right narrative its a pro corporate narrative.
You should really watch some videos by Jimmy Dore and Abby Martin on GOOG, FB, and TWTR and how in bed they are with each other and how quickly they bury anybody who doesn’t cheer the corporate flag, its some seriously scary shit man, nobody should have THAT much power.
bassbeast,
I agree that google (as well as others) are too big and it’s very dangerous for these companies to have so much control over what people see.
If you really want to criticize google over bias, then go for it. However if it is really your position that companies need to be balanced and fair, then objectively you also need to criticize the right-wing propaganda outlets too. In fact part of the issue is that when organizations become so ridiculously & unapologetically biased (aka “the party of trump”), it becomes very difficult to have balance without adding weight to the other side.
Think of it in terms of game theory… we’ve got partisan extremists including trump and mcconnell running government who will never stand up for the center and for the left and acting against the public interests for the majority. Most of us in the center absolutely hate this polarization and view it as unhealthy. Nevertheless people in the center are forced to make a decision: 1) ether do nothing and let the extremists continue skewing the spectrum, 2) move away from the center to counter-balance extremism and try to restore balance overall.
In the end, I agree it’s dangerous to have private companies making these kinds of decisions behind the curtains. Still, I think you have more work to do in order to prove that google’s ‘project veritas’ is causing bias rather than eliminating it. Consider an op-amp circuit where you frequently have to add input bias to remove output bias.
It’s cool, that regulators take care about our privacy. But why do they always take on Google and not Facebook, Microsoft and Apple? Are they any better?
First, Microsoft and Apple have a longer history and better connections inside political environments for many reasons, including cooperation with state agencies.
Second, FB is under pressure these days.
Third, which one of the others can direct you to the “right” targets when you search for “honest public server”? Right. Digital references are now more important than books or direct interaction.
Last, Google is a de facto monopoly on search field and, as so, must be closely watched, it is too much power to leave in the hands of just one group, no matter how well-intentioned the current occupants may be. Coupled with advertising, the thing becomes hyper dangerous and more than capable of being abused to hurt interests contrary to Google owns.
Google search and advertising should have been split a long ago, in my opinion, ideally with the search part gaining a civil watchdog institution with unlimited access to search mechanisms used, and with its members periodically renewed. A bare clause of confidentiality about the precise algorithm could be used and an independent tool to check the results should be developed.
That’s an unworkable solution. Like it or not, providing search results is not a business by itself. Even in the early days of the internet, searches were performed by other businesses. The very first search I remember was provided by our ISP, and since it was a local business, only provided local results. Then AtlaVista and Yahoo came along, but they quickly showed that search is not a business. AtlaVista obviously went under, and Yahoo went into the news / email / advertising space (and then still went under years later). If you complicate things even further, by wanting only “relevant” search results, I do believe search can only be provided by an advertising business. For example, if you had been doing searches for construction supplies, and typed in “nail supplies” (or something similar), do you want to see results for the construction or beauty supplies? The search provider, like it or not, must have at least some idea of what you are trying to find. It just so happens that advertisers are usually looking for the same information, hence the reason the two go together so well.
The issue here, at least the way I see it, is that advertising is a business that needs to be heavily regulated. Ideas like “truth in advertising” are virtually nonexistent in the US. In the name of selling a product (profit), getting elected (also profit), and pseudo-freedoms, you’re allowed to disseminate whatever information you want, with little regard for the truth. Even newspapers have started to print (online or on actual paper) blatant advertisement and pass it off as actual news. Another example are folks buying advertising space to display clearly untruthful information. And finally, you have shadowy figures (using shell companies and the likes) doing all the things I mentioned, or worst, while not having to divulge any information about themselves.
This discussion reminds me of a George Carlin line, “I think people should be allowed to do anything they want. We haven’t tried that for a while. Maybe this time it’ll work.”
And what is wrong about the split on search and on advertisement broker, the second paying the other to have the right to negotiate insertions? Perhaps, not even exclusivity should be allowed. True be told, it would impact negatively the gross and net income but, one way or another, a solution must be found to the risk/unfair situation we are now.
They just fined Facebook 5 Billion Dollars for privacy violations. Which was both the largest sum ever, and pitifully too small.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/12/technology/facebook-ftc-fine.html
Microsoft has been better recently, but yeah they are getting worse see the recent windows cloud licencing issue.
https://www.computerworld.com/article/3435104/microsoft-set-to-close-licensing-loopholes-leave-cloud-rivals-high-and-dry.html
Apple is probably better in terms of privacy, I think. At least outside of China. Please refresh my apple outrage memory.
Google and Facebook try to control what you read, watch, and think. Google, for example, has been caught trying to rig the 2020 US election. Also, Google and Facebook make all their money by selling your data to advertisers and showing ads to you. Microsoft and Apple have a more “honest” business model where they sell hardware and software. Furthermore, it’s perfectly possible to not use any MS or Apple products, but it’s absolutely impossible to not use any Google products (the ReCaptcha is an example).
joscher,
I appreciate your use of quotes there since they’ve never done business honestly, haha. But I think we need to admit that microsoft has embraced the advertising business model. The transition may not be totally complete as users are expected both to pay and still get ads, as with windows 10. If they’re not intending to sell any new windows upgrades, as they claim, then you can be sure that advertising will be central to their products going forward.
“Bill Shooter of Bul
First, so no one gets confused, yoko-t is very wrong. Companies are not leeching off of google. In the case of search and youtube, they create content that Google sells advertising on. Google gets a cut off the top of ad revenues, sometimes ”
Really? Following sure sounds a lot like leeching….
YouTube Creators Are Turning the Site Into a Podcast Network
Several popular YouTubers — including including Logan Paul, Marques Brownlee, and Emma Chamberlain — have launched podcasts in the last year, “proving YouTube is a bonafide podcast network,” writes Alex Castro via The Verge. “They’re all available through traditional audio platforms, like Apple Podcasts and Spotify, but many also offer video versions that live on dedicated YouTube channels where they’ve become incredibly popular.” From the report:
These creators have figured out how to make podcasts work on a platform that wasn’t designed for them, leveraging YouTube’s search algorithm to meet new audiences, make more money, and expand into a medium that’s expected to grow rapidly in the coming years. Some of the top podcasts on YouTube are pulling in millions of views every few days or weeks. Top shows, like Ethan and Hila Klein’s H3 Podcast or Joe Rogan’s Joe Rogan Experience, have dedicated audiences who use YouTube notifications as an RSS feed, letting them know when a new episode is available to watch. While the podcasts are also distributed via Spotify and Apple Podcasts, YouTube acts as a first stop.