
50 U.S. states and territories announce broad antitrust investigation of Google - ihuman
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/09/09/states-us-territories-announce-broad-antitrust-investigation-google/
======
smush
While this is a far shorter list than Luther's 95 theses, I will post this
here while I run to get popcorn to see just how Google gets out of this.

Sample arguably anti-competitive actions Google has taken:

1\. Turning off XMPP federation in Google Talk, moving from an open standard
to an archipelago of walled gardens (Hangouts, Allo, GChat, Hangouts again,
Messages/RCS that the carriers are gonna give up to Google to host(!?))

2\. Killing Windows Phone by not allowing any Google-based apps on the
platform ([https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/14/15970082/google-killed-
wi...](https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/14/15970082/google-killed-windows-
phone-not-iphone))

3\. Posting map/weather/review content straight to SERPs starving
MapQuest/WU/Yelp et al from getting clicks

4\. Anyone not browsing on Chrome gets an upsell to install Chrome (MS got
roasted for this with Windows Media & best used on IE)

5\. Degrading services on competing browsers/platforms via things like U2F in
Firefox, slow/wontfix polyfills
([https://www.computerworld.com/article/3389882/former-
mozilla...](https://www.computerworld.com/article/3389882/former-mozilla-exec-
alleges-google-torpedoed-firefox-with-oops-excuses.html))

There are probably more entries to list, and these are complex issues being
reduced to a sentence or two, but I've tried to not post things that are not
immediately anti-competitive even if I don't like 'em (Google+ forced
integration which resulted in me still not commenting on YouTube all these
years later, RIP Google Reader)

~~~
stcredzero
_There are probably more entries to list, and these are complex issues being
reduced to a sentence or two_

A recurring pattern with Google and YouTube: Someone achieves virality through
controversy. They are promptly de-monetized, deleted, or frozen with no reason
given. When the period of viral opportunity has passed, typically in about a
day or two, the account/monetization is reinstated with no reason given.

This pattern is so insidiously subtle, so frequent, and so potentially
powerful in manipulating the media of 2019, it probably deserves its own Wiki
and its own investigation.

Those who can control virality can modulate most of the loudest voices on the
Internet. That's basically the power to relegate the ideas you don't like to
relative near silence. (Also, those who can control virality can pick the
winners among startup companies.)

(EDIT: Basically, these sorts of shenanigans are like Michael Swaine's story
from decades back about deleting his own parking tickets in South Carolina. He
was supposed to have parking so he could work on the city's mainframe, but the
bureaucracy dropped the ball. Way back then, this sort of thing amounts to a
funny anecdote. In the world of 2019, it would be a firing offense and
possibly get someone prosecuted for fraud. There are analogous things from the
world of aviation, and stories of the wild west. With great power comes great
responsibility. Make no mistake, as a technologist, you wield power.)

~~~
smush
I knew I was forgetting a big one but couldn't bring it to mind. I agree with
you wholeheartedly.

It is rather chilling to see that even though the world-wide web started open,
so much centralization can have quite the chilling effect on competition.

What can we do about it? If I were king of the world, it would be P2P
decentralized content provided over mesh-network-powered-by-cognitive-
frequency-hopping-radio but since I'm not, what are solutions prospective
officials could leverage?

Split Alphabet from YouTube, then split YouTube in half between user-posted
content and business-posted content?

~~~
fjabre
The only way forward is p2p.

Inet in current form is too susceptible to governments and bad actors like
Google who only work for their shareholders.

Has google released anything worthwhile the last several years?

What has happened to the culture of innovation at Google? We still know them
for gmail, maps, and search but what have they done lately? They seem bland by
comparison to the Google of the late 90s and 2000s.

Why has Google become the new Microsoft?

~~~
smush
> The only way forward is p2p.

Then we as the tech community need to figure out tooling so that grandma and
grandpa can use p2p / mesh networks. We have several challenges in that way
that I'd like to see solved, but don't know how to make that happen.

2 immediate challenges is that If you can't get today's iweather over ipfs or
bittorrent (with a better UI clearly, not everything has to be file transfer),
p2p can't fully replace HTTP. Email is arguably pretty federated if not quite
p2p, but the spam problem is real.

The below example is an account of my grandma's attempt to get p2p chat going.
Grandma doesn't even know what a p2p / mesh network is, but we will assume she
read about it in the paper from the HK protests and being the enterprising
unafraid-to-try-new-tech-things user most users aren't, she tries it out.

She is in a large concrete gym, no cell service unless she stepped out of the
building for a moment. Remembering the paper article, she decided to try the
Bridgefy app so she can text with someone else. How do you spell Bridgefy? Oh
right, I have the paper here, let me painstakingly hunt and peck to find the
name of the app in the Play Store, ah there it is. She stepped out of the gym,
got signal, installed the app on both devices, then stepped back in and opened
the app.

Her friend gave her her own phone so she could install both at once so they
can be apart, yet chat.

Being forewarned by her techie grandson, she managed a feat denied to nearly
all the cell-phone using public and skip the dark patterns of denying Bridgefy
contacts, reluctantly giving it location access 'for Bluetooth', and
attempting to stop it reading her phone number. Already, 95% of users would be
long stopped by now. But she persisted.

The app would not move forward, giving error toast messages of error 7::0
cannot do that. She had to step back outside where she had signal for it to
work for an unknown reason.

She got back in the gym, was not able to get either phone to talk to each
other, either in 'public broadcast mode' or by trying to add a contact
straight from the app. She uninstalled both copies and moved on without having
p2p messaging, not because our devices' bluetooth radios couldn't handle ad
hoc communication, but because the client doesn't exist that doesn't want to
surveil or otherwise profile you.

PS -> that user was not an enterprising Grandma, but myself. If someone knows
how to get Bridgefy / a p2p mesh chat app going without selling the privacy
farm, I'd love to hear it.

~~~
u801e
> Then we as the tech community need to figure out tooling so that grandma and
> grandpa can use p2p / mesh networks.

It seems that the grandma/grandpa use case always comes up in technical
discussions. I've never really seen the need to cater to those who aren't
willing to learn how to use the tools they have.

Could a person born after 2000 figure out how to use a VCR? Set the timer so
that it records the correct program? What about a rotary dial phone? Do they
know how to make a collect call? What about directory assistance? Could they
figure out how to use an 8 track player?

They probably wouldn't, but the motivated ones would avail themselves of the
resources at hand and figure it out.

The same thing applies to current technology.

~~~
shkkmo
> I've never really seen the need to cater to those who aren't willing to
> learn how to use the tools they have

For tools that depends on network effects to provide value (such as P2P), the
on-boarding process and learning curve are quite important to reaching the
required levels of adoption.

This is especially true when you are competing uphill against alternate tools
with established networks that provide more network effect value.

~~~
u801e
> For tools that depends on network effects to provide value (such as P2P),
> the on-boarding process and learning curve are quite important to reaching
> the required levels of adoption.

Yet all the examples I gave (rotary dial phones, 8 track players, VCRs) had
very high rates of adoption. But I'm sure that there were people from
generations once or twice removed from the introduction of such technologies
that never really learned how to use them.

~~~
shkkmo
> rotary dial phones, 8 track players, VCRs

None of those products are close to as dependent on network effects to provide
value. Rotary telephone didn't depend on other rotary telephone users, just
the existence of automatic exchanges. 8 track and VCR didn't depend on other
users of the format, but on the availability of content in that format. While
they all gain advantages in pricing / availability from networks effects, the
core functionality of these products does not depend directly on the network.

The rotary dial phone had no real competition.

8 track player adoption was largely driven by large automakers offering 8
track players as factory and dealer installed options (and thus simplifying
the on-boarding process). Once 8-track's portable niche was taken over by the
easier to use cassette tapes, it declined fairly quickly.

VCRs did not face an 'uphill' competition against a competitor with an
existing network effect advantage. It can even be argued that Betamax lost
(despite having a product that was percieved to be better) because its higher
cost relative to VCRs hampered its on-boarding process.

There will (almost) always be people willing to cope with a worse on-boarding
process and/or steep learning curve. (This is far more true for a product that
has functionality not otherwise available.)

However, if your product is dependent on network effects and you are competing
uphill against a similar product with a well established network, then your
on-boarding process and learning curve will be critical (but not the only
factor to) your success.

It is hard to find a group of products that is more dependent on network
effects than P2P software (besides centralized messaging platforms).

------
spsful
As fun as this is, why not investigate companies that _actually_ display
anticompetitive behavior? Luxottica? Comcast? AT&T? I feel like this simply
won't benefit consumers as much as the attorneys general believe it will.

~~~
smush
Luxottica can be fought with ZenniOptical and friends. Besides my very first
pair of glasses, I've never in my optical-aid-lifetime given money to
Luxottica for glasses/frames/contacts. That is not to toot my own horn, but
demonstrate that an informed consumer can sidestep their monopoly without
adverse impacts.

Comcast & AT&T are terrible actors, and they need more regulation, not less,
to counter their natural monopoly + rent-seeking behaviors, but there is at
least some regulation going on that could be iterated on. Google is,
relatively speaking, running amok through the streets.

~~~
flokie
They also own all of the equipment everyone else uses to make your glasses.

~~~
alanbernstein
_Own_? Or _produce_? You're not saying lens grinding equipment is always
leased from some Luxottica subsidiary, are you?

------
marmada
Would I be a bad person for saying I'm sad about this because I want to work
at Google and I don't like seeing their future threatened?

I also don't get the anti-Google movement, there are far worse things like our
broken healthcare and criminal justice system. This seems like one of those
"screw the coastal elites" type of thing. Unless someone can give a reasonable
explanation of why Google specifically should be targeted instead of other
companies that are more conservatively aligned.

~~~
twoheadedboy
> Would I be a bad person for saying I'm sad about this because I want to work
> at Google and I don't like seeing their future threatened?

That doesn't make you a bad person, but it IS a bad reason.

~~~
sa46
That reason is no worse than the inverse reasoning: gleefully supporting the
investigation because it threatens Google's future.

Also, I think the reasoning is independent of the specific situation. Working
at $PLACE could benefit the poster. So the poster wants to see $PLACE continue
to have a bright future. Seems like a standard argument for capitalism and the
free-flow of human capital to better jobs.

I understand there are externalities that affect this specific situation,
hence the investigation, but since it's not clear there's antitrust behavior,
it seems premature to classify the reasoning as bad.

~~~
HillaryBriss
> gleefully supporting the investigation because it threatens Google's future.

what about gleefully supporting the investigation because it will create
opportunities for competition, create room for other small companies to have
at least a fighting chance at success?

------
i_am_proteus
The title is slightly confusing. According to AP,[0] current participants are
48 States, Washington DC, and Puerto Rico. California and Alabama are not
involved.

[0]
[https://www.apnews.com/042b0989b2404c34a57e8ff9c8bbd0db](https://www.apnews.com/042b0989b2404c34a57e8ff9c8bbd0db)

~~~
partialrecall
I can't say California surprises me, but I wonder what the deal with Alabama
is.

~~~
zer0faith
This is why [http://www.madeinalabama.com/2018/04/google-kicks-off-
constr...](http://www.madeinalabama.com/2018/04/google-kicks-off-construction-
on-alabama-data-center/)

~~~
ssalka
>100 jobs

~~~
rtkwe
Yeah but it'll also provide some good money to businesses during construction
too.

------
beautifulfreak
The stories that make me cringe are when some loyal user's account is frozen
and there's no recourse to learn why it happened. Can't reach a person to ask
why, email queries go unanswered. It happens every day. Or, say, gmail
addresses get taken away, and it causes suffering. Sometimes Amazon closes
accounts and effectively seizes assets, because the account held funds.
Someone else here mentioned youtube's intermittent demonitization of videos
when they go viral. These are issues a government could actually be effective
at solving, giving consumers guaranteed review, with burden of proof on the
corporation, not the consumer. Add fines and penalties to make it meaningful.
Make them remember that the customer is important and shouldn't need a lawyer
to get an overlord's attention.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
In the past, the tech companies could count on the Republican impulse to
protect Big Business to shield them from a lot of these type of investigations
(for example, see how the Microsoft Antitrust DOJ investigations got a lot
easier for Microsoft after George W. Bush became President).

Now, large numbers of Republicans view Big Tech as the enemy, and combined
with Democrats historic suspicion of Big Business, this has resulted in a very
volatile time with respect to government regulation and investigation.

~~~
j0ba
Were Obama and Clinton not friendly enough to big business for you? Obama
bailed out the big banks without any real punishment and had Henry Paulson (ex
CEO of Goldman Sachs) as Treasury secretary.

------
mirimir
From [https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/nicolenguyen/google-
ant...](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/nicolenguyen/google-antitrust-
investigation) (which I can actually read):

> "Amazon Marketplace and Basics, and Google’s ad exchange and businesses on
> the exchange would be split apart. Google Search would have to be spun off
> as well," according to the [Warren] plan.

I'm all for busting up monopolists, but what would fund Google search? I mean,
that's what arguably drove Google to build its ad business, in the first
place. But if it could work somehow, maybe we'd get a return to more useful
search results.

Edit: OK, I get it, ads.

~~~
skyyler
Are there options that don't involve advertising?

Is there any way that we as a society could try to move towards an online
economy that isn't built upon hijacking attention?

~~~
mirimir
I hate seeing ads, and I hate being tracked. So I'd much rather have fairly
priced and privacy-preserving micropayment services.

However, I also get that many people couldn't afford even micropayment prices
that are comparable to current ad income. So they'd need some accommodation.
Having a "pay or see ads" choice might work. Except that there are adblockers.

~~~
skyyler
I hate the idea of paying for the luxury of having your own thoughts not be
intruded upon.

~~~
mirimir
I'm usually as hardcore as the next person, but isn't a bit much to get huffy
about someone trying to fund their site using ads? As I see it, they have the
right to use ads. And I have the right to block ads. So we just fight it out.

------
JaceLightning
Why Google and not Apple? Apple is worth more, and is extremely
anticompetitive. You have to buy and sell apps in their app store. Apple
charges a base 30%. All apps must be approved by Apple. And Apple has a
history of removing apps from their app store only to release their own clone
of the same app!

~~~
zaroth
The simple answer is all the things you list are things you are allowed to do
_when you don’t have a monopoly_ , and while Google has a monopoly on Search,
Apple does not have a monopoly on Smartphone.

~~~
pb7
How does Google have a monopoly on search? Does Bing or DuckDuckGo not exist?
Or the dozens of other sizable search engines? Monopoly does not mean majority
shareholder.

------
root_axis
Banning and demonetizing users is not an antitrust issue. Poor customer
service is not an antitrust issue. Nothing related to politics or censorship
is an antitrust issue.

Where I think google could be in trouble.

\- Using google.com to push chrome installations when non-chrome browsers are
detected.

\- Forcing google services on android users

\- Giving preferential search rankings to google services over competing
services

\- Ad network exclusivity contracts.

~~~
buboard
how is demonetization not an antitrust issue? They control the ad market, why
should they also decide whether their advertisers can reach certain
publishers? Shouldn't they be a neutral ad exchange platform, given that they
have absolute control in the ad markets? What's the justification behind
demonetization other than starving websites to death?

~~~
root_axis
Demonetization is in service of advertiser prerogatives. YouTube would
monetize every video if they could because it would make them a lot of money,
they don't do so because advertisers do not want to advertise on controversial
videos. YouTube loses a ton of money when they have to stream HD video to
millions of viewers for free. Additionally, advertisers are not prohibited
from working directly with publishers and this is actually pretty common.

~~~
buboard
> because advertisers do not want to advertise on controversial videos

all of them? proof?

------
PeterStuer
Antitrust hit Microsoft's corporate culture to the core. It had a dramatic
effect on the company and it's leadership.

I wonder whether a serious and prolonged litigation will affect Google as
deeply a well.

~~~
the_duke
Interesting, do you have some links exploring this topic further?

~~~
macintux
This is a too-brief but interesting oral history:
[https://www.theringer.com/tech/2018/5/18/17362452/microsoft-...](https://www.theringer.com/tech/2018/5/18/17362452/microsoft-
antitrust-lawsuit-netscape-internet-explorer-20-years)

Gates was a business shark before the trial. Absolutely ruthless.

It’s hard to say how much of the changes are due to the court case, vs a
changing technical landscape, vs the company growing to an enormous size, vs
Gates simply getting older, but certainly after there were far fewer stories
about his passion for crushing any company that might compete with him.

And promising to support Office on the Mac after Jobs returned to Apple
definitely smells of a response to anti-trust concerns, and it was critical at
that point in time to Apple.

------
simplecomplex
What is the suspected antitrust violation?

> Their concerns ran from the way Google processes and ranks search results to
> the extent to which it protects users’ personal information.

Ranking search results isn't anti-competitive and protecting user information
isn't relevant to antitrust. Ranking search results is the service a search
engine provides. Google doesn't stop other search engines from competing in
the search space.

~~~
aviraldg
It would be quite amusing to see engineers trying to explain search algorithms
to politicians and lawyers, I admit.

Not as amusing as the questions they might ask or the solutions they might
suggest, though.

------
chrischen
Google search also has a hidden cost and lock in. It’s likely that most
products you find through Google and which you also see ads for are forced to
pay Google 20-40% of the retail price in ads (passed onto the consumer) due to
a lack of competition in search. And this number is not going down over time
and Google has no incentive to make it go down (such as by innovating in ways
people discover what they need so that it becomes cheaper).

Not only that but the consumer doesn’t directly pay this Google tax, and thus
does not attribute this cost to Google.

------
sjs382
50 of [US States & Territories]

48 states are included, all except for California and Alabama.

------
nafey
What is expected outcome of this? Can Google be expected to be broken up like
Bell Corp?

~~~
blihp
A breakup is highly unlikely IMO. Not only has the U.S. govt not been keen to
break up monopolies in the last ~30 years, but it actually let AT&T
reconstitute itself by re-acquiring most (all?) of the former baby Bells ~20
years after breaking them up.

In addition, the current administration has taken an absolutely anti-
regulation approach if you get/stay in their good graces. I suspect that
something closer to a toothless consent decree with certain _< cough>_
accommodations to the administration would make this all go away. Not saying
it's right, just that it seems the most likely.

~~~
ptlu
These are states bringing g this issue. So it isn’t up to this particular
administration in this case or even the DOJ.

~~~
blihp
Just because the States are kicking this off / working together doesn't mean
that they will ultimately have jurisdiction over (most of) the charges they
may want to pursue. Interstate commerce is an enumerated power in the
Constitution so it may not be their call to make.

------
ihuman
I had to replace the "50" in the title with "All" since HN doesn't allow
titles that begin with a number. Hopefully this doesn't count as
editorializing the title, and is allowed.

Edit: put "50" back in the title. In this case, the number isn't there to make
a clickbait title.

~~~
Tomte
You can edit the number back in afterwards (and that's the official solution),
but this rewriting by the HN software is still obnoxious.

~~~
ihuman
Thanks, I didn't know that.

------
otakucode
Let's see if Eric Schmidt stands by his "if you haven't done anything wrong,
you shouldn't have anything to hide" viewpoint in the coming months. Should be
fun.

------
jimbob45
This seems to be dodging the broader point that Google is simply too big and
can exert too much power over which companies live and die by virtue of their
massively diversified influence. I see this investigation ending with fines,
which won't solve the root problem.

------
Phanyxx
"I want the best advice, from the best doctors — not the doctor, not the
clinic who can spend the most on advertising" says the politician, with no
sense of irony.

------
joelx
I hate this ongoing PR attack on Google now being joined by politically
ambitious state AG's. Google has done more positive things than any other
company over the last twenty years. Instead of targeting bad companies that
destroy people's lives (think gambling or alcohol or junk food), they are
trying to destroy the company that gave us free search, maps, and email.

------
shmerl
Let them probe, why all kind of IM services refuse to interoperate, while
e-mail does it just fine.

------
franczesko
Minimum bid on AdWords/Google Ads is a clear sign of monopolistic practices.
Even if there are no competitors for the phrase or if it's very niche, you
will have to pay the minimum Google tells you, in order to even appear in
SERP.

------
ilaksh
A big part of the reason we have these technopolies is that people want/need
the large networks/platforms they provide. To get that without monopoly
companies we will need to turn to open decentralization technologies.

------
tyxodiwktis
This is great. Break Google up intro search, corporate services (G Suite,
GCP), YouTube, Android and a few others. Then, split Facebook into Instagram
and FB. Amazon into retail (split further by category?) and AWS.

This will trigger a new wave of innovation. As smaller businesses, more
innovations will be big enough to move the needle and will therefore be worth
pursuing. Competitors will emerge - the giants are strangling their innovative
competition in the crib right now, and we are all missing out as a result.

Breaking up standard oil and ma bell had very positive results. Glad to see
some movement on breaking up anti competitive monopolies again.

~~~
dodobirdlord
> Break Google up intro search, corporate services (G Suite, GCP), YouTube,
> Android and a few others.

Supposing that hypothetically any of these products have a monopoly in their
market, how does splitting them up into separate companies by market help in
any way? Splitting Facebook into FB and Instagram at least makes sense, since
the resulting two companies would both be social media companies and could be
expected to compete with each other. Will Google search compete with GCP, or G
Suite with Android? How does this make any sense from an anti-trust
perspective?

------
kerng
What is sad is that these investigations are coming always way too late (after
the damage is done) and probably won't be resolved until another couple of
years.

~~~
sixothree
Or resolved at all.

------
telltruth
On more selfish note... I'm hoping to apply and work at Google. How much can
this affect me? What could be the possible timeframe when penalties would go
in effect?

The antitrust thing had been going on for a decade and Google had managed to
vanquish the efforts, thanks to friendly government. Now the Breitbart videos
of founders with teary eyes on Trump election victory has shook the
conservatives to the core. Trump's bulldog, aka DOJ, is in full revenge mode
and they would opt for maximum damage. Google's bad luck is that alt-left also
want them to be broken up! It appears that there is nowhere to run for them.
My expectation is that Trump would retain presidency due to weak Democratic
field and antitrust would go through. This can really tear apart the stock if
split is done intentionally to handicap them of capital. As employee who gets
vast majority of comp as stock, this could be disaster in high CoL place like
CA.

------
izacus
Ironically... reported by a source that bans us Europeans because they can't
stop breaking GDPR. -_-

Any other source for this news?

~~~
rubbingalcohol
Tell your MEP to stop passing dumb laws, but here's an archive link:
[http://archive.is/25rzP](http://archive.is/25rzP)

~~~
repolfx
MEPs don't create laws in the EU, it's the Commission that controls that. MEPs
may only rubber stamp or delay them somewhat. They aren't politicians in any
normal sense.

~~~
drak0n1c
Perhaps the EU should be reformed to allow more direct representation in
lawmaking, otherwise it risks future exits.

------
onetimemanytime
never too late but late for a lot of companies ruined by Google.

------
easytiger
Cash cow identified.

------
OrgNet
5 years too late

------
hguant
So, is this all 50 States, plus assorted territories, or a total of 50 States
and territories? If the latter, who isn't taking part?

The article links to a piece from a week ago saying that half the US State's
AGs were taking part in the investigation. Looking forward to hearing more
about how broad this is.

