Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

(nytimes.com)

97 points | by donohoe 5 hours ago

5 comments

  • jordanb 54 minutes ago
    That "Lake America" is doing a hell of a lot of work for Google
    • strictnein 48 minutes ago
      The judge was appointed by Clinton, so they've been in their role for decades now. It seems unlikely that someone who has served that long in her position would rule based on making the child in the White House happy.
      • bigyabai 20 minutes ago
        To the contrary, the entire DOJ understands that FAANG and the three-letter-agencies are one revolving door. Any judge that attempts to defang Google's data collection may well run afoul of the American surveillance system, which this administration will fight tooth and nail to defend.

        Not very different from how federal protectionism keeps Apple's App Store centralized despite trillions of dollars in ostensible market damage. Anyone trying to loosen America's grip on software distribution is crossing an ugly national security line that we're all too ashamed to admit exists.

        • strictnein 12 minutes ago
          The DOJ isn't part of the Judiciary branch, it's part of the Executive.

          > FAANG and the three-letter-agencies are one revolving door

          Most of the NSA is active duty service members and former military. Did you mean other three letter agencies, excluding the most powerful one dealing with surveillance?

          > Any judge that attempts to interfere with Google's data collection may well run afoul of the American surveillance system

          The judge in this case put the final nail into Trumps slush fund. But now she's doing his bidding. Is that what you're claiming?

          Not everything is a conspiracy. You don't have some special insight into this.

          • pixl97 8 minutes ago
            >The DOJ isn't part of the Judiciary branch, it's part of the Executive.

            Separate branches of the government are so pre-2024. These days all three branches march lock step in their jackboots and new RVs.

          • bigyabai 9 minutes ago
            > The judge in this case put the final nail into Trumps slush fund.

            That's a very different, partisan effort. It's not bipartisan like the Patriot Act was, or domestic surveillance in-general.

            > Not everything is a conspiracy. You don't have some special insight into this.

            Not everything is as it seems. You can't meaningfully prove that the NSA sat on their hands in the 13 interceding years since Snowden. There's no evidence that US interventionism is on the straight-and-narrow now, you're wishcasting and calling it truth.

        • vasco 13 minutes ago
          Since you are getting no replies but getting downvoted I'm adding source from 2016 corroborating what you mention: https://www.techtransparencyproject.org/articles/googles-rev...

          251 individuals in such detected instances just in google. And that report is 10 years old, I'd bet it's 10x that by now.

          • strictnein 6 minutes ago
            That makes the argument worse, not better.

            Google employees tens of thousands of people. The US intelligence apparatus employees hundreds of thousands of people. In all of that, over eight years, there are 251 people who moved between the two, and because of that absolute rounding error, the entire federal government is beholden to them?

            Since you are making the accusation that this is a real conspiracy: statistically, how many people should have rotated between these two giant employers over an 8 year span? The answer isn't zero.

            Also, this makes the "data" even more pointless:

            "between Google or related firms, and the federal government, national political campaigns and Congress during President Obama’s time in office"

            "were appointed to federal advisory boards."

            Do you know how many of those boards exist? There are tons of them. I've known a couple of people who have served on them. They're incredibly boring and deal with things like "What accessibility standards should federal government websites support?". Of course you would want people from Google on that type of board.

            > 251 individuals in such detected instances just in google. And that report is 10 years old, I'd bet it's 10x that by now.

            "Detected instances"

            It's so secret that I can name one of them off the top of my head: Matt Cutts. Is he part of this vast conspiracy too?

        • surcap526 10 minutes ago
          [dead]
    • bitpush 49 minutes ago
      Isnt that updated by some national database and google just pulls that data? Apparently Apple Maps will also get it in a few days, since they get the data from them as well.
      • jvolkman 40 minutes ago
        Yes. We had the same comments about Gulf of America.

        Edit: I don't know that there's an actual database served up by the US Gov, but governments control the naming of these things within their own jurisdictions. All of the big mapping products have the ability to serve up different names based on where you're viewing from.

        And Apple just renamed: https://apnews.com/article/apple-lake-ontario-america-google...

        • TazeTSchnitzel 32 minutes ago
          https://edits.nationalmap.gov/apps/gaz-domestic/public/searc...

          GNIS, Geographic Names Information System

          (Which still shows Lake Ontario for me as I write this. The body of water along the US's southern coast is Gulf of America however.)

          • michchinn 12 minutes ago
            > Per Secretarial Order 3453, Lake Ontario has been renamed to Lake America. The basemaps for GNIS are in the process of being updated to reflect this name change.

            I see this on the top bar

        • ericmay 34 minutes ago
          I too remember last year when everyone really cared about that and it was the end of the world and then we got on with our lives because at the end of the day it not only doesn't matter, the naming of these things is arbitrary, and anything that a president can change the name of a subsequent president can modify yet again.

          What do they call the South China Sea, is it the East Sea or is it the West Philippine Sea? What do the French call the English Channel? Is it Le Manche d'anglaise?

          • nancyminusone 25 minutes ago
            So unimportant that you just have to comment on how unimportant it is
      • spogbiper 32 minutes ago
        https://www.reuters.com/world/us/apple-maps-changes-name-lak...

        Apple updated it yesterday. If I were Google I'd turn down that refresh rate and let someone else take the bad PR next time

      • bee_rider 32 minutes ago
        Seems like something that should be user-configurable (like DNS servers). While the recent annoying renamings have drawn attention to the issue, landmark names have basically always been political.
      • avs733 13 minutes ago
        I have been wondering this as well. I cannot imagine having this be autoupdated without review from a centralized database is a good idea. This is a process that needs to be frangible and have some friction in it.

        In this day and age, GPS mapping tools have major implications for societal function, safety, economics, national security, healthcare, etc. I'm struggling to think of an industry where a sudden absence/subtle changes of named GPS mapping data would not have an effect.

        If everyone relied on the same data base which could push changes to the map in the pocket of every resident of a nation that would be the first thing I would think to hack. Probably easier than actually jamming or spoofing GPS/GNSS over a huge area.

        • bpodgursky 1 minute ago
          There are thousands of small street changes across the country each day. New subdivisions, road expansions, lane changes, new traffic lights. Of course the vast majority should be auto-updated without manual review, what would a person add to the process? The public database is the system of record in the first place.
    • okdood64 49 minutes ago
      You mean by Judge Leonie M. Brinkema who was appointed by Clinton and has ruled against Trump policies/agenda regularly?
  • CrzyLngPwd 4 minutes ago
    So, essentially, a nothing burger.

    As usual.

  • paulpauper 45 minutes ago
    what shocker . google has a long history of prevailing in court
    • strictnein 41 minutes ago
      The ACLU has a long history of prevailing in court, as does the NRA.

      Courts should regularly issue rulings you don't like. Their job isn't to make people happy.

  • ocdtrekkie 49 minutes ago
    What an incredible miscarriage of justice. Make enough money and pay off enough politicians, and you can pretty much shoot people on the street in broad daylight.
    • strictnein 46 minutes ago
      Assuming you read the ruling, what do you disagree with the judge on?

      What politicians were paid off to make a judge in a lifelong position who has served for decades rule in Google's favor?

      • shakna 34 minutes ago
        What ruling? It isn't released yet. We have declining to breakup, based on behavioral remedies, and zero details.
        • strictnein 2 minutes ago
          Kind of my point. How does one know something is a miscarriage of justice if you haven't read the ruling? Because you don't like the outcome?
    • dgellow 47 minutes ago
      [flagged]
      • Petersipoi 36 minutes ago
        Just to make sure I'm understanding, you're saying that Google payed someone (presumably Trump), who then went and convinced a Clinton appointed judge who has ruled against Trump in the past to give the case to Google?

        Is that actually what you think?

        • dgellow 30 minutes ago
          I do not no, I don’t have an opinion on the Google situation. I was responding to the following:

          > Make enough money and pay off enough politicians, and you can pretty much shoot people on the street in broad daylight.

    • unrented7977 44 minutes ago
      [flagged]
  • colincowardly 52 minutes ago
    Destroying a great US institution is not in the national interest. Cases like these should never be permissible in the first place.
    • krunck 47 minutes ago
      > a great US institution

      So, too big to fail, but to small to be a monopoly that abuses it's power?

    • johndhi 49 minutes ago
      I'm more on your side than most but surely you don't think zero antitrust enforcement is best for our country?
    • 2OEH8eoCRo0 22 minutes ago
      Bring back Ma Bell and Standard Oil they were great US institutions!
      • wbl 2 minutes ago
        Standard Oil was sued for keeping low prices thanks to vertical integration prompting the classic quip about antitrust litigation.
    • svachalek 44 minutes ago
      Ah yes, the great US institution of ad tech. Mass privacy intrusion in the service of selling clicks for a nickel.
    • deaton 16 minutes ago
      So because Google monopolizes on a big enough scale, suddenly they are too important to break up? I would argue that if any single company is big enough to where if it were to break up it would be "against the national interest," then it is too big and must be broken up.
    • cyberax 49 minutes ago
      Companies like modern Google should not be permissible in the even firster place.