
Missouri Attorney General launches investigation of Google - elsewhen
http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article184113056.html
======
ChuckMcM
It seems like an easy way to generate some publicity for an Attorney General
to sue Google. I watched with interest when the Mississippi AG did this
([https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/01/mississippi-
ag-j...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/01/mississippi-ag-jim-hood-
sues-google-again/)).

It always seems to go back to some sort of privacy and/or surfacing web data
that someone else doesn't want surfaced. I don't know if there is an easy
answer here.

------
thebiglebrewski
Yay! I am happy about this. I feel as if there are a ton of monopolies and
trusts today that stifle competition. Does anyone else feel similar?

~~~
todd8
I don't.

Why do we want or even trust government to decide for us that a company is too
big and needs to be smaller or that a company should conducts it business in
the way that the government wants it to. As long as a company isn't somehow
forcing me to use it services, I'm free to go elsewhere.

If you don't like Google don't use it. The fact that you desire something from
Google that it isn't giving you (searching with more privacy, better free
email service, whatever) doesn't give you some sort of moral claim against the
company.

The public can vote for other companies by buying from or using them. As a
last resort, start a new company and run it the way you want.

~~~
chiefofgxbxl
> If you don't like Google don't use it.

 _What happens when people don 't know they're using Google?_

I have an Android phone and one thing that is bugging me is how the default
browser on the bottom "toolbar" is in fact named "Internet". This may be fine
for techies like you and me, but I'm concerned for the older folk who may have
difficulty with technology or non-techies. In this case, if one just went with
the defaults, one wouldn't even know you were using a Google-built browser.

Remember that old story back when Internet Explorer was dominating the market,
and most people surveyed couldn't tell the difference between the web and a
web browser? They pointed to the "e" browser logo and said, _" That's the
internet!"_

This is a nasty pattern in tech these days. On my laptop which carries Windows
10, the programs aren't named in such a way to identify that they are
Microsoft programs [0]. You see an email client named "Mail" and a map service
named "Maps". No indication that they are _Microsoft Mail_ or _Microsoft
(Bing) Maps_.

Also, on Windows 10 when you log in you are presented with a "photo of the
day". If you click on any of the links on that image, the URLs will be opened
in Microsoft Edge, and any searches are performed using Bing, _regardless if
you set your default browser to something else_!

[0]
[https://s18.postimg.org/ipxt1962h/default.png](https://s18.postimg.org/ipxt1962h/default.png)

~~~
scarface74
_Remember that old story back when Internet Explorer was dominating the
market, and most people surveyed couldn 't tell the difference between the web
and a web browser? They pointed to the "e" browser logo and said, "That's the
internet!"_

How did that whole trying to use their monopoly to dominate the market work
out for Microsoft in hindsight?

There was time that AOL was the number one ISP and MySpace was the number one
social media platform.

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
Yeah, how did it work out that the EU forced Microsoft to unbundle its
browser?

~~~
scarface74
It's not "unbundling" the browser that caused Microsoft to lose its dominance
in the technology industry. None of the big four major technology companies
today - Apple, Google, Facebook, and Amazon -depend on their browser being
dominant. Microsoft failed to take advantage of the next major technology
waves - mobile, search, social, and ecommerce.

Unbundling the browser didn't help the other browser manufacturers.

------
sounds
In case you got a weird sense of deja vu, this is Missouri, not Mississippi.

Mississippi's AG, Jim Hood vs Google: [https://arstechnica.com/tech-
policy/2017/01/mississippi-ag-j...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-
policy/2017/01/mississippi-ag-jim-hood-sues-google-again/)

------
CobrastanJorji
I haven't read Axios before, but I really appreciated that summary. I got the
gist of what the lawsuit concerned and what the ulterior motive might be and
there weren't 10 more unnecessary paragraphs with no real information padding
it out. It's almost exactly the right amount of concise.

~~~
CodeWriter23
A politician elected on a populist platform doing things to stand up for his
people is an "ulterior motive"? To me, an ulterior motive would be getting
elected on a populist platform, then taking actions to benefit his own
commercial interests.

~~~
CobrastanJorji
Why does your definition of an "ulterior" motive require commercial benefit?

Are you suggesting that, if this man had a secret reason for going after
Google, and that reason was that it was part of his plan to boost his
popularity and name recognition with local conservatives by shitting on
"liberal" companies in order to boost his chances of winning a seat in the
Senate, it would somehow not count as an "ulterior motive"?

Mind you, I'm not saying that this is the case. Maybe he's just going after a
big company for a good reason. But your suggestion that an ulterior motive
could not even theoretical exist because he's not engaged in commerce seems
ridiculous.

~~~
CodeWriter23
My definition doesn’t _require_ a commercial interest. It’s just amazing to me
in an age where politicians are typically benefitting their or their crony’s
commercial interests that a guy who is elected on a populist platform is
accused of having an ulterior motive for defending the interests of the people
as he promised, because that might cause his constituents to elect him to a
different office and serve them further.

~~~
tacomonstrous
Among other things, this seems to carry the implicit premise that prosecuting
Google for antitrust violations is a populist issue. I would wager that if you
polled it, you would find the exact opposite.

~~~
CodeWriter23
Perhaps you might want to give this a read if you think Google’s power is of
no concern:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/technology/frightful-
five...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/technology/frightful-five-start-
ups.html)

~~~
tacomonstrous
That's not what I said. The claim is that it's not a populist position, not
that it's not the correct one.

------
wnevets
There are so many actual monopolies that seemly get ignored. Maybe google
needs to buy I mean donate to more politicians.

~~~
izacus
They should learn from Comcast, which manages to bribe government in banning
their competiton :)

~~~
mcintyre1994
If you're talking AT&T/Time Warner, then consider Time Warner own CNN's parent
company.. I doubt Comcast's bribes are necessary for the current government.

------
dan1y
And I was just lobbying Google Fiber employees about expanding fiber (or
wireless) to my hometown, St. Joseph, which is near Kansas City.

------
Qw3r7
It's actually correctly pronounced Missouri.

But it's nice to see our state in the news for a good purpose.

------
sctb
We've updated the URL from [https://www.axios.com/missouri-ag-starts-
antitrust-consumer-...](https://www.axios.com/missouri-ag-starts-antitrust-
consumer-protection-probe-into-google-2509102675.html), which points to this.

------
ifij775
I'm guessing someone in Missouri didn't get their political payoff this month.

------
sjg007
Google is a target because of their strong relationship with
Obama/Clinton/democrats.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/technology/google-in-
post...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/technology/google-in-post-obama-
era-aggressively-woos-republicans.html?mtrref=www.google.com)

~~~
sctb
Whether or not that's true we need commenters to include substantive
information when making such claims, otherwise we're just gonna have another
tedious partisan flamewar.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

------
jgowdy
Translation: We need money and we are watching the EU take incredible amounts
of money in fines, and it occurred to someone “Why can’t we do that?!”

~~~
FussyZeus
The EU doesn't fine to fund itself. Fines are not a good funding source.

~~~
mschuster91
Just look at where cops do traffic monitoring (aka speed traps). In Germany
they are supposed to put speed traps in areas with a large amount of accidents
caused by speeding, but many end up being placed simply where people casually
speed in tiny amounts (e.g. 20 km/h too fast is 30€)... and a single trap can
bring 15M € per year ([http://www.stuttgarter-
nachrichten.de/inhalt.verkehrsueberwa...](http://www.stuttgarter-
nachrichten.de/inhalt.verkehrsueberwachung-a-8-blitzer-bringt-dem-land-
rekordeinnahmen.b2b85819-b0dc-455b-9f7b-8c4ffb582681.html)).

In total, speed traps in Germany are estimated to bring in billions of euros
in revenue ([https://www.welt.de/motor/article13877289/Das-
Milliardengesc...](https://www.welt.de/motor/article13877289/Das-
Milliardengeschaeft-mit-den-Tempo-Blitzern.html)). There are many agencies
which can place speed traps and profit - federal, country, county and city
cops, in addition to city personnel and sometimes even private companies.

They are not a good funding source, but a very consistent one once you find
the right spots to milk people.

~~~
germanier
Speeding fines can only be levied by the municipality in which the violation
took place. That's exactly one entity.

What you didn't mention is that (since removed) 15 M€ speeding trap was
located on a downhill stretch with a high risk of traffic jams and not only
placed for revenue.

German speeding fines are minuscule in international comparison. Just try
"casually speeding" 20 km/h in any neighboring country.

Speeding is a German national sport leading to a vicious circle of decreasing
limits even further.

~~~
mschuster91
> Speeding fines can only be levied by the municipality in which the violation
> took place. That's exactly one entity.

No, it's two entities at the least in urban areas: the police and the
municipality.

> German speeding fines are minuscule in international comparison.

Yes, which makes people speed in higher amounts and only because of this the
system of traps bringing in 15M+€ actually works - yes you get the occasional
dumb moron with 50+ km/h, but the most part is netted by the small fish
speeding 10-20 km/h.

------
dontnotice
This is bizarre. It's also bizarre how the reporting on it doesn't mention how
out of left field this is. Why Google? why Missouri? How come a republican is
doing this?

As for: _The United States has lagged behind Europe in pursuing antitrust
cases against tech giants_

This narrative is silly. The EU goes after "tech giants" partly because they
are foreign, the US doesn't have that incentive.

~~~
mpweiher
Nah, the EU also goes after local champions, see for example the Vitamin case:

[http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-01-1625_en.htm](http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-01-1625_en.htm)

It's just that the US has become extremely lax in its anti-trust stance.

~~~
bduerst
That's from 16 years ago. To give context, that's six years before the treaty
of Lisbon which defines the EU Commission today.

------
11thEarlOfMar
Missouri 2017 State Budget: $27 Billion [0]

Google Net Profit Last 4 Qs: $63 Billion

Google can literally fund the state of Missouri indefinately. How does
Missouri make this a fair fight?

[0] [https://www.usnews.com/news/best-
states/missouri/articles/20...](https://www.usnews.com/news/best-
states/missouri/articles/2017-06-30/missouri-governor-signs-budget-
cuts-250m-in-spending)

~~~
tryingagainbro
_How does Missouri make this a fair fight?_

The power of government. Missouri can definitely pay for quite a few attorneys
(maybe do a tobacco litigation type deal) but the danger is that other states
will join in. Having taken on Google can be quite a thing on your resume as
you seek higher office...who will resist it?

~~~
bitmapbrother
Surely you mean the taxpayers of Missouri will be paying for a long and
protracted legal battle. And once they find out the amount they paid to pad
his resume they'll have a thing or two to say on how Missouri funds were used.

~~~
tryingagainbro
Always been like that. But personally I think Google should be investigated
and stopped, smaller companies will again have a chance.

I assume that they are safeguards: the governor might be able to intervene if
an AG goes nuts, the courts etc etc.

