
Justice Department meeting state AG offices Tuesday to discuss Google: sources - mgr86
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tech-antitrust-google/justice-department-meeting-state-ag-offices-tuesday-to-discuss-google-sources-idUSKBN1ZX2LG
======
throwaway13337
The best remedy for these tech giants is to force the use of open standards or
to allow integration with other products on their platforms and products
without profit sharing (e.g. 30% take) or any other share-cropper tactics.

Their big unfair advantage comes from the network effect of consumers using
their products and the closed access to those customers.

Open integration benefits everyone except those with the monopolies.

~~~
sixothree
Or separate their products. Imagine if Google Maps had to compete as its own
company.

~~~
criddell
It would probably do quite well with Google Search being it's main customer.

------
jameslk
I wonder if US officials will be concerned by the prospect that breaking up
these companies may potentially cede market share to tech companies in other
countries, such as China. Especially if other countries don't bother breaking
up their tech companies if they get too large.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
I think fear of China is a common bogeyman to throw out to try to avoid tech
regulation. And I don't feel it's a very compelling argument: Tech monopolies
squash newer, more innovative competitors. The monopolies are holding us
_back_. For all of the innovation you may believe tech monopolies have
accomplished, it pales in comparison to what we'd accomplish without them in a
competitive environment where the best technology wins, instead of the biggest
monopoly.

The ability to foster rapid, zealous competition is the strength of capitalism
and it's what we have over China. We need to get the established corporate
entities using their market power to harm competition out of the way.

~~~
jameslk
Wouldn't opening up competition to other companies be exactly the reason why
such non-US competitors may be able to acquire more market share?

The only way I could see the US being able to regulate non-US competitors who
grow too large is to fine them, such as what the EU does. Although that may
not be enough to stop them from acquiring market dominance and may cause
retaliation (such as the current trade war).

To be clear, I'm not a shill for these big tech companies. I don't currently
work in any of them nor have stock in any. I'm concerned about their
dominance, stifling of competition and their use of market position to render
consumers powerless just as much as you may be.

~~~
joe_the_user
It's hard to see search as anything but a winner takes all affair. If you have
the best results, why wouldn't the world come to you?

------
michannne
My question is what comes after? Look at AT&T, which was once part of the
aftermath of Bell. It now owns so much of the telecom market, that it's only
challengers own pretty much all major network stations and entertainment
companies. And Verizon is no slouch either.

They can split these companies up but eventually some piece/s will gobble up
the rest through dark mergers and aggressive business dealings and become
bigger than their predecessor.

~~~
spaceribs
It's actually quite simple: Nationalization.

Edit: instead of downvoting me, you may want to argue why AT&T is any
different than Amtrak, The Postal Service, and the TSA.

~~~
pdonis
_> you may want to argue why AT&T is any different than Amtrak, The Postal
Service, and the TSA_

It isn't. But that's not an argument for nationalizing AT&T; it's an argument
for privatizing the others. In fact, two out of three of them already have
private competitors in the US; the only one that doesn't is Amtrak.

~~~
spaceribs
Considering how the postal service has been hobbled by politicians attempting
to privatize it[1] and as for the TSA, it used to be private, do I really have
to argue why that was a bad idea?

[1] [https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/03/04/how-the-
po...](https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/03/04/how-the-postal-
service-is-being-gutted.aspx)

~~~
pdonis
_> the postal service has been hobbled by politicians attempting to privatize
it_

So what? That has nothing to do with the fact that private companies have
proven, through the entire history of the United States (including before the
USA was even an independent country), that they can provide postal service. So
there is no need for the government to be doing it.

 _> as for the TSA, it used to be private, do I really have to argue why that
was a bad idea?_

If you have such an argument, you should make it to the airports that use
private screeners today.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screening_Partnership_Program](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screening_Partnership_Program)

~~~
spaceribs
> If you have such an argument, you should make it to the airports that use
> private screeners today.

Sure!

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks)

~~~
pdonis
You are aware that the program I linked to was put into effect _after_ 9/11,
right?

------
Donald
Very savage to “leak” this when Alphabet’s earnings are released. Probably a
predictor of a bad outcome for Google. Or, everyone in this administration is
an inside trader.

------
judge2020
Outside of Chrome being the default browser on Android, I don't see what
antitrust Google could be hit with. Their market dominance in almost all of
their sectors seems to only exist due to either it easily integrating into
other Google products or their product being better than the rest, and nearly
every time there are other comparable players you can easily migrate to.

~~~
proximitysauce
There are other ways Google "leverages" its market share that are
questionable. Look at the recent controversy about making all search results
look like ads. They are also making it harder for ad blockers to exist in
Chrome with every release. Favoring sites that implement AMP, removing urls...

I think our industry as a whole would benefit from Google being broken up.

~~~
halfjoking
If AMP favoritism isn't an Antitrust violation I don't know what is.

It'd be like if Microsoft rigged Windows to run .NET applications twice as
fast as anything else, and made it very difficult to open any other type of
application... where second-class applications are unavailable from being
found in desktop search, can't have custom icons or be in Program Files.

~~~
lern_too_spel
AMP is faster by design, and it is impossible to get a generic HTML page to
load as fast from a SERP (even a non-Google SERP), so your .NET analogy
doesn't fit. Is it an antitrust violation that other search engines (Bing,
Baidu, and Yahoo! Japan) also prefer AMP results?

~~~
proximitysauce
It's not "faster" if I have to wait for the AMP site to load, then figure out
where to tap in Google's UI to get the page I actually wanted to go to, then
wait for it to load. Especially the case if I want to share the url (the real
one, not the AMP one).

I don't need an intermediary popup page between me and the destination I seek.

~~~
lern_too_spel
If the AMP page doesn't have the content you want and the non-AMP page does,
that is the publisher's problem and the search engine's problem for displaying
an inferior page. It is not a problem with AMP, which usually has the
information I need. Similarly, if a mobile-optimized page does not have the
same content as a desktop page, that is also a problem with the publisher and
the search engine. The same for if an RSS entry does not have the full content
of an article or if a transit feed does not match the data that is on a
transit provider's web page.

> the real one, not the AMP one

Is that the mobile URL or the desktop URL? This problem has existed for ages.
It's the user agent's problem to give a UI to share the canonical URL if
that's what the user wants.

~~~
proximitysauce
> If the AMP page doesn't have the content you want and the non-AMP page does,
> that is the publisher's problem and the search engine's problem for
> displaying an inferior page.

Actually it ends up being my problem. I don't want multiple versions of the
same thing. AMP is _yet another_ format and it's one that is outside of normal
web browsing workflow.

~~~
lern_too_spel
> Actually it ends up being my problem. I don't want multiple versions of the
> same thing.

Then don't make AMP, mobile-optimized web pages, RSS, Apple News, Facebook
Instant Articles, etc.

If you want wide distribution, you have to support multiple formats. At least
AMP, like RSS and mobile-optimized pages, is open, meaning that anybody can
(and many link aggregators do) consume it.

------
api
I've harbored a counterargument for a while against breaking up Google or
Facebook:

Both of these are effectively surveillance capitalist companies. Their primary
business is spying on people and using that data to target them for ads and
other forms of manipulation.

When big bloated "Soviet bureau" corporations are broken apart the result is
generally an explosion of innovation and growth in a sector.

Do we really want an explosion of innovation and growth in that sector? Maybe
it would be a good thing if the surveillance capitalist behemoths are allowed
to continue to get stagnant and bloated. If and when an alternative paradigm
for sustainable business on the Internet emerges it would make them easier to
displace.

Breaking up these companies would also vastly increase the surface area
exposed via surveillance. Instead of two or three companies spying on us we'd
suddenly have dozens of former divisions of these companies.

Edit: lastly I must echo others in their lack of trust for this justice
department. I think this is likely to be a political cudgel deployed to force
these companies to stop filtering out or de-prioritizing extreme far right
propaganda.

------
tyingq
The paper the FTC did back in 2012 around Google is an interesting read.
[http://graphics.wsj.com/google-ftc-report/](http://graphics.wsj.com/google-
ftc-report/)

------
gman83
So what's the remedy, separate companies for Search, Ads, Youtube,
Cloud/Firebase, GSuite, Android/Chrome, Pixel, Maps?

~~~
ocdtrekkie
The best divide is actually far less aggressive: Platforms should be split
from services. Android and Chrome are IMHO the primary things Google should be
forced to divest.

I am not sure you could (or even should) split Search and Ads, but there may
need to be some significant rules laid down on Google's ability to tie their
other products and services to search. Strict rules should be laid down on
allowing ads to sell placement above trademark holders for their own
trademark, as that kind of shakedown is insane.

~~~
lapnitnelav
The best move would be to revert the Doubleclick acquisition and spin out the
AdTech part as its own separate entity.

But also make Google Search an open auction system (like it sort of is on
Display) where other players can integrate with and Google (search) takes a
fixed % for each click. Pipe dream I suppose but best way to avoid Google from
being able to be truly dominant.

~~~
saalweachter
How does bidding for search result position not make the results anything but
an add auction?

If I'm Result Source X, why would I ever bid on answering an unprofitable
search, even if I know the answer?

------
marmada
This blatant bias against the "coastal elite" (let's be real, there's
definitely a political bias to this entire thing) scares me.

Then again, I'm working at Google this summer, so maybe I'm biased ...

------
killjoywashere
The leaders of Chinese companies like Alibaba, TenCent, and SenseTime must be
following these stories with glee. I get the Western position that values will
win in the long run, but someone should consider the possibility that some of
these Western companies employ Western employees who represent those Western
values and actually _are_ being responsible.

------
jcfrei
One simple and effective policy change could be to forbid bidding on keywords
which are names of a competitors company or brand. A lot of marketing expenses
are wasted on these types of keywords and only benefit Google but neither the
user nor the advertiser.

~~~
quotemstr
Why is that a waste? If you make Foo brand razors and I, making Bar brand
razors, think I have a better product, why shouldn't I be able to bid on "Foo"
do that I can educate the public about my product? Whence this idea that
product or company names deserve special protection from competitors?
Competition makes the world go round.

~~~
idoh
It's an anti-user practice. As a user, if I google for "x", I'm looking for
"x", and it is annoying that someone gets to pay to "educate" me about some
alternative that I never said I wanted.

~~~
quotemstr
The whole point of advertising is to show people things they wouldn't
otherwise see. Yes, some people are against advertising generally. That's a
naive perspective. But if you're okay with ads generally, you should be okay
with brand keyword ads.

~~~
idoh
Hey, I'm OK with ads generally. But being OK with a thing generally doesn't
mean being OK with every specific instance of that general class.

Google is a tool, the user is trying to do something specific with the tool,
and Google is deciding to not honor the intention of the user. It's clearly
not something good for the user (whereas other uses of ads arguable are).
Google can get away with it because they are a monopoly and, shrug, what are
you going to do?

Google is free to run their business as they please, but let's not pretend
that this practice is somehow enriching the user's experience.

------
hodder
Maybe we shall find out the fate of the Fitbit deal soon (from the North
American side). FYI, the merger arb on that deal is pricing significant risk
of failure: Pricing at 6.53 now vs 7.35 all cash offer from GOOG.

I like the trade, but it isnt for the faint hearted.

------
busymom0
What if there was some rule where any company over lets say 10 million users
are treated differently (or a public utility)? I am not sure if this is the
right solution or not but I think a lot of the monopolistic and anti-trust
behavior comes because of the network effect of these products.

------
abvdasker
Normally I would say that investigating Google for antitrust violations would
be a good idea, but I do not trust this administration and it's Justice
Department to do it without having nefarious ulterior motives. It isn't hard
to imagine what they may be: using the threat of a DOJ investigation to extort
either money or political favors from the enormously powerful multinational
technology conglomerate that is Google. The people who run the current
administration have demonstrated countless times that they are not afraid to
use the powers of the federal government for personal benefit and enrichment,
so it has become impossible to trust any legal action they may undertake.

~~~
dariusm5
Previous administrations have clearly abused their power with the DOJ, just
look at how DACA was passed. Just because the large media outlets did PR for
previous administrations or you agreed with their politics doesn't mean that
abuses did not occur.

~~~
herbstein
Other comments have explained why DACA isn't an example of DOJ overreach. I'd
like to take a magnifying glass to the underlying reason to bringing up DACA
in this context.

It's an Obama-era policy that has been shown to have wide, bi-partisan support
across the country. Bringing it up here is a means to say "Look, Obama also
did bad stuff. You can't call Trump out on _his_ bad stuff" which is an
asinine way to frame anything.

It reminds me of an old conservative response to progressive/leftist ideas
about American foreign policy.

Leftist: "... and that's why the current administration should be considered
as war criminals" Conservative: "By that logic every administration since
World War 2 were war criminals" Leftist: "Yes"

Whether or not the argument posed by the above comment is even valid is, for
the purposes of this comment, irrelevant. What is more interesting is knowing
why the supposed crimes/overreach of the Obama administration excuses the
overreaches of the Trump administration.

~~~
zweep
But in your war criminals dialogue, the “Yes” from the leftist provides cover
to compress all administrations on the dimension of war crimes, dismissing
LBJ/Nixon/GWB by saying “Carter was a war criminal too.”

------
joe_the_user
Whatever problems I have with Google pales with what problems I'd have with
whatever the US would want to carve Google into.

~~~
paulddraper
How would you even know that?

~~~
kick
The USA's history on this hasn't been stellar. The breakup of AT&T is
testament to that.

~~~
sailfast
So, the Standard Oil and Bell breakups didn't work out? Do you still have to
pay to rent your telephone handset hardware each month?

Also I don't think in this case that the determination that something requires
action to mitigate anti-competitive behavior means that the government
declares what happens. Not a lawyer, and have not read any precedent but I'd
imagine a first step would be to ask these companies about a structure that
would work best if business units were separated, with some guidance, rather
than some declaratory thing.

~~~
ndesaulniers
It's common in the US to rent your DOCSIS modem.

~~~
loeg
But importantly, _not required_. Cable ISPs just make it easy to give them
more money, which is the normal incentive for any business. You don't have to
rent a modem to buy internet service.

~~~
magicalist
> _You don 't have to rent a modem to buy internet service._

As required by law[1], though, definitely not by choice[2].

[1] [https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-
bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=0083f0a8d5...](https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-
bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=0083f0a8d5afabe6705a4b8738d84113&mc=true&r=SECTION&n=se47.4.76_11201)

[2] [https://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2016/05/chart...](https://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2016/05/charter-blocked-customer-owned-modems-for-two-years-must-
pay-fine/)

------
shadow-banned
Google is a slight red herring here, they need to be going after Facebook.

------
jstewartmobile
It is always a good time to shatter a megacorp.

The true innovation in this field was all defense spending in the first place.
Not going to shed a tear over a setback to a bunch of grifters who cashed in
on the public's investment.

------
Despegar
Of all the Big Tech antitrust scrutiny, this one seems like the most
straightforward case.

~~~
vkou
Is it? Where would you make the cut, and which anti-customer behaviour (Which
seems to drive anti-trust legislature in the US) would it combat?

------
Valmar
Google has too much power and influence over what people see when they search
for things.

That, combined with having a massive ad network and the most browser
marketshare, Google has the ability to unduly influence the opinions of
millions of people, if they so chose.

Too much power for a single corporation...

I trust them far less than I trust the Trump administration. Google is proven
themselves to be pretty evil. They're so much worse than Facebook or
Microsoft.

So, let them be broken up. I'll feel a little safer.

------
m0zg
HN, after years of blaming Google for everything that's wrong with the world:
"WTF, I love Google now!"

