Google Warns Customers About Antitrust Bills (axios.com) 42
Google on Thursday warned some customers that antitrust bills targeting the tech giant could jeopardize the services small businesses rely on. From a report: By turning to its customers, Google could drum up opposition from small businesses that may give lawmakers pause in advancing legislation. Google is emailing small and medium sized businesses that use its advertising, analytics and free business profile tools, to tell them antitrust bills in the House and Senate could "cost your business time and money." Google said the dangers could include: Making it harder for customers to find businesses because listings, including address and business hours, may no longer appear in Google Search results or on Google Maps, and hurting the effectiveness of digital marketing if Google Ads products were broken up and disconnected from Google Analytics.
"[W]e're concerned that Congress' controversial package of bills could have unintended consequences, especially for small businesses who have relied on digital tools to adapt, recover and reach new customers throughout the pandemic," a Google spokesperson told Axios. Google declined to say how many businesses it contacted. Customers using some Google products will also see a prompt encouraging them to opt in to receive more information about the bills.
"[W]e're concerned that Congress' controversial package of bills could have unintended consequences, especially for small businesses who have relied on digital tools to adapt, recover and reach new customers throughout the pandemic," a Google spokesperson told Axios. Google declined to say how many businesses it contacted. Customers using some Google products will also see a prompt encouraging them to opt in to receive more information about the bills.
Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Google Warns Customers About Antitrust Bills
Cry ... me ... a ... river.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
But jobs... (Score:2)
This is always my reply when big business talks about creating jobs... When the pressure is off they stop. When there is any hint of pressure they fire/lay off everyone. Then they go back to acting like they provide jobs again when they want something.
This is that just respun. Google is not providing "cost savings" (jobs), those are just talking points that will vanish when there is any pressure or risk ( quarterly-earnings needs a boost, some other lawsuit hit them ) they will "fire/layoff everyone" (remo
Re: But jobs... (Score:1)
Dear Google: your lack of support jeopardizes us (Score:5, Insightful)
Google on Thursday warned some customers that antitrust bills targeting the tech giant could jeopardize the services small businesses rely on.
Funny how Google would worry about this, since they really don't give a shit to start with - our company's AdSense (or whatever name they give it) got locked with no reason given, and after a month of trying to even get anyone to respond to our queries about it, we just had to give up and create a new one instead.
So I'd say the biggest worry is Google being its usual self and jeopardizing small businesses itself, rather than some bill doing it.
Bull (Score:5, Insightful)
No way this would hurt small businesses. It might cost time and money, but so does everything the government does. Usually the benefits well exceed the losses.
That is, the government stops businesses from polluting, which costs $10 million, while 100 people live instead of die/.
Similarly, google might have to charge an extra 10%, but google stops collecting information on me.
That is net benefit to EVERYBODY.
Re: (Score:2)
Side note about pollution: that is way too conservative. "Air pollution is estimated to cause 7 million deaths a year and cost the global economy nearly $3 trillion," according to someone on the Freakonomics podcast--not sure if it was the host or a guest.
- https://freakonomics.com/podca... [freakonomics.com]
This is actually a good sign (Score:5, Insightful)
Monopolies try to appeal to theit "customers" and drum up grassroot support that way - as if it's ever been successful - when they feel the cold hand of the law tightening around their fat neck.
In other words, if Google didn't feel threatened, they wouldn't pull their pants down in front of people they really don't give two shits about. It's a very good sign.
Re: (Score:2)
It's even more annoying when it's "asking" employees [theintercept.com] to do the intervention. At least customers can walk away from such treatment.
Re:This is actually a good sign (Score:4, Insightful)
Monopolies try to appeal to theit "customers" and drum up grassroot support that way - as if it's ever been successful
I'd say the customer-targeted FUD by Uber, Lyft et al worked quite well for California's Proposition 22 campaign.
And (Score:1)
Anti-trust is a reskin on the age old desire of politicians to get in the way to benefit their connected cronies, or to get paid to get back out of the wy
You just need better arguments.
The trade off will be more playing of the game via donations, or perhaps they will back off in exchange for better back doors.
"Anti-trust" will never escape the lips of Frank Underwood except as an arm twister for the real stuff.
Also... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Toss-up between Trump or Google for president. At least Google doesn't have the nuclear football.
power BS (Score:2)
And monkeys might fly out of... (Score:2)
It may, but they're intentionally scaring people. Why is this legal, but it isn't against people? The government needs to flex some muscle on their own behalf. Protect the people inside from lies about their work (if there are any).
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this legal
We'll see if it is. The whole "That's a nice little business ya' got there, buddy. Shame if something were to happen to it." has been dealt with effectively in the past. Google execs will enjoy their new view through the rebar.
If there really is any customer pain here, (Score:2)
then it's short term pain for long term gain. Personally though, I think anti-trust is all upside for everybody except Google. I'd give a shit for the poor bastards - but only if it was long, runny, and smelled atrocious.
Google warns about antitrust bills... (Score:3)
Because, if they pass, google will be hit, and might be broken up, and then they might have to compete to get small business's business.
Oh, the horrible loss of ROI!
Of course, if the bills don't pass, small business is stupid if they don't expect prices to go up. That's what a monopoly *does*. (But they won't raise salaries on the bottom half of their employees, nor will they pay the subcontractors more, I mean, that would be "inflationary".)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know the bills, but I'd assume they wouldn't break Google up; rather they would address some of its anti-competitive behavior, such as buying the position of default search engine.
what's their incentive to be honest ? (Score:3, Insightful)
There isn't one.
Big tobacco, and now big oil, have taught us that lying is very, very profitable.
And there is no downside whatsoever.
Monopolies are bad. Google will do whatever evil that needs doing to keep the street happy.
and of course, keeping the street happy keeps the exec's paychecks very fat.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Monopolies are bad.
Absolute statements are never true
Of course, not all monopolies are bad. An author (via copyright) has a monopoly on his/her writings. If you start a business, when you register your company name with the State, you are given a monopoly on that name (at least at the county level if it's fairly generic - state/country-wide if you register it as a Trademark. If you invent a widget, you get a monopoly via a Patent. If you start a business and crush the competition, legally (because you're meeting customer needs) you might
Re: (Score:2)
A little like a thief saying all locks are bad so everyone would benefit if they went away. Locks are still with us since no one believes the thief isn't looking out for their own interests.
Re: (Score:1)
You just made the point that monopolies are ALL bad.
Copyrights, trademarks, and patents are all problems. It would be better for everyone if they just disappeared tomorrow.
Right.. Because there'd be ANY incentive to make a movie if the next day someone could TAKE IT and distribute it for free with no legal ramifications. Spend $100,000 developing a new product? Too bad! I'll copy it the next day for $100 and undercut you on sales.
You have absolutely ZERO intelligence if you think we'd have any of the shit we have in our modern world if it wasn't for intellectual property laws. For fuck's sake, even Linux requires copyright protection so all that work isn't simply stolen b
Re: (Score:2)
If you start a business and crush the competition, legally (because you're meeting customer needs) you might also end up with a monopoly.
That's the bad kind of monopoly.
Our local farrier is a monopoly.
Not really, he has competition from other farmers some distance away, after all it is possible to transport food rather long distances.
Monopolies ARE bad, just that the degree of "badness" is different and sometimes is somewhat offset by some other things. Copyright is a form of monopoly (it was supposed to be temporary but whatever), but if the author decides to do something disproportionate (charge an absurd amount of money for it etc) people can just ignore it, after all,
Re: (Score:1)
If you start a business and crush the competition, legally (because you're meeting customer needs) you might also end up with a monopoly.
That's the bad kind of monopoly.
What the fuck? No it's not. Did you miss the keywords: MEETING CUSTOMER NEEDS? If you're good at what you do, charge a fair price, and don't screw anyone over, you CAN acquire a natural monopoly through attrition. This is not a bad monopoly. How the hell would you come to that conclusion?
Our local farrier is a monopoly.
Not really, he has competition from other farmers some distance away, after all it is possible to transport food rather long distances.
I said farrier. The guy that puts SHOES on HORSES. And don't tell me he's not a fucking monopoly because he is. Nobody else, in my area, is a farrier. There's exactly ONE. That is a natural monopoly. He's not keeping
Re: (Score:2)
If you're good at what you do, charge a fair price, and don't screw anyone over, you CAN acquire a natural monopoly through attrition. This is not a bad monopoly. How the hell would you come to that conclusion?
Because after you acquire it, you CAN start screwing everyone over.
I said farrier. The guy that puts SHOES on HORSES.
Sorry, I misread.
Yeah, the guy has monopoly, but putting shoes on horses does not have a very high barrier to entry (not zero, but easier than building a working OS or CPU). If he started to charge $100k per horse, someone else would quickly start doing the job as well.
No they aren't. The world does not exist in your binary view.
"It's so great that there's only one supplier for the things I need and I absolutely have to use that supplier with no alternatives, it would suck so much if I could choose" -
Re: (Score:1)
If you're good at what you do, charge a fair price, and don't screw anyone over, you CAN acquire a natural monopoly through attrition. This is not a bad monopoly. How the hell would you come to that conclusion?
Because after you acquire it, you CAN start screwing everyone over.
Can is not will. You're adding conditions to the statement that did not exist before. You also have a shitty view of humans. Not everyone is just waiting to fuck others over. My statement is true and yours is conditional.
I said farrier. The guy that puts SHOES on HORSES.
Sorry, I misread. Yeah, the guy has monopoly, but putting shoes on horses does not have a very high barrier to entry (not zero, but easier than building a working OS or CPU). If he started to charge $100k per horse, someone else would quickly start doing the job as well.
Another condition. He's not doing any of that. His prices change for inflation, but otherwise he's kept his same prices for years. i.e. He's not doing anything you're accusing him of "maybe doing at some point in the future, but not now".
No they aren't. The world does not exist in your binary view.
"It's so great that there's only one supplier for the things I need and I absolutely have to use that supplier with no alternatives, it would suck so much if I could choose" - I don't know if anyone said that ever.
Competition brings prices down and quality up. Even in your farrier example - if someone else started offering the same service, it would be cheaper and faster to have shoes put on your horse.
Another conditional and "competition" for the sa
Re: (Score:2)
You say that I am adding conditions, though you are the one adding the biggest condition:
"Monopoly can be not bad IF the company that has monopoly behaves as if it didn't have it". Yes, in that case, yeah, whatever, sometimes a company can behave fairly, honestly and not actually abuse the monopoly position. Most of the time they do abuse it.
I guess "bad" is an absolute. Still, monopoly is worse than having competition, so, out of those two alternatives, monopoly is the "bad" one. In some special circumstan
Re: (Score:1)
Loss of Address and Business Hours (Score:1)
Honestly if our address and business hours disappeared from the Google search results that might be a net positive. I'd rather have people click through and engage with our website to see our hours. It gives us an opportunity to put some more information in front of their eyeballs as well.
break em up (Score:2)
Same BS big co's have used (Score:1)
for more than 100 years, at least back to the Robber Baron era. They just replaced the name.
APIs? (Score:2)
This is a lie:
Techies know this integration can continue to happen via APIs, and if it's opened up to a broader market of information providers and ad networks then people and small businesses can actually benefi
Google taking a page out of Facebook's playbook (Score:2)