Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

They would still have business relationships with the other entities they were split from; they'd just be only business relationships, done in public and appearing on the balance sheets, and able to be regulated "between."

An example of the type of business relationship Warren probably wants to encourage: the way Google pays Mozilla to keep Google Search as Firefox's default search provider.

So, if Google were split up into Google-the-search-engine and Google-the-ad-agency, Google Search's main source of revenue would still be from ads—but it'd be via the separate company of Google Ads, paying Google Search for ad placement.




> Google Search's main source of revenue would still be from ads—but it'd be via the separate company of Google Ads, paying Google Search for ad placement.

This would almost certainly lead to less privacy. Google Search, instead of just sourcing ads from Google Ads would have to open bidding to a wide variety of ad networks.

That means your personal search history wouldn't just be accessed by Google, it would be publicly available to any upstart ad network that wanted to bid for Search ad placement.


Yes, by default. But opening that interface exposes that previously company-internal leak of information to the government-as-regulator to step in and clamp down on. If they say both that Google must not run its own ads but must rely on a third-party for ad placement, and that Google isn't allowed to show its search data to third-parties, then that has a meaningful impact on how Google operates as a business.


I don’t have as much faith in the system as you. And I wouldn’t want to wait a decade for it to be fixed.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: