Google reportedly bankrolls and enlists members of US Congress to fight EU antitrust case - Polidicks

[url]http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/17/google-lobbyists-congress-antitrust-brussels-eu[/url] [quote]Google enlisted members of the US congress, whose election campaigns it had funded, to pressure the European Union to drop a €6bn antitrust case which threatens to decimate the US tech firm’s business in Europe. The coordinated effort by senators and members of the House of Representatives, as well as by a congressional committee, formed part of a sophisticated, multimillion-pound lobbying drive in Brussels, which Google has significantly ramped up as it fends off challenges to its dominance in Europe.[/quote]

It's perfectly legal here! We totally don't have a problem with it.

[quote]The European Commission's main complaint with Google involves the way it favors its own search results above competitors'. The most relevant links are not always listed first on Google. For example, people searching for "running watch" will see photos, prices, ratings and links to five watches from companies that paid Google to advertise on the site. They won't see Amazon or other rivals' results listed first, and they're not necessarily seeing the best or most relevant products at the top of the results. "It's not based on the merits of Google shopping that it always comes up first in search," Europe's top anti-trust official Margrethe Vestager said. "Dominant companies can't abuse their dominant position to create advantage in related markets." [/quote] incase anyone wondered why

You know, I really like Google for all the cool stuff they've done over the years (and are still doing), but this is just ridiculous. Competition is healthy whether you like it or not, and thankfully the EU isn't as corrupt as the US (not yet, anyway), so hopefully they'll persist with the case.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49336079]incase anyone wondered why[/QUOTE] Google has had sponsored search results like, forever. I mean, Google is an advertisement company at its heart.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49336079]incase anyone wondered why[/QUOTE] I don't understand how that's a problem. If it's the same as canada google it says there ad's anyways.

Oh no, Google's asking Congressmen to write letters to their counterparts in the EU. Democracy is dead. Corruption runs rampant in the 17th least corrupt country in the world. Quick, someone call it 'legalized bribery', it's not a proper lobbying thread until someone does. [QUOTE=DELL;49336156]I don't understand how that's a problem. If it's the same as canada google it says there ad's anyways.[/QUOTE] Some EU members see Google promoting Google-related search results as essentially using its own power to take control of other markets. Google (the search engine) is a search engine used to find information, but by promoting ads to products advertised through Google they also gain leverage over any other industry that wants to be found through search. So it's not that they're doing advertising, it's that they're doing advertising while also being the undisputed leader in search engines. If a company doesn't want to do business with Google, they're at a huge competitive disadvantage against companies that will. That's the sort of situation that triggers an anti-trust suit. You can decide for yourself whether it's fair or not- these are never black-and-white rulings.

[QUOTE=catbarf;49336176]Oh no, Google's asking Congressmen to write letters to their counterparts in the EU. Democracy is dead. Corruption runs rampant in the 17th least corrupt country in the world. Quick, someone call it 'legalized bribery', it's not a proper lobbying thread until someone does. Some EU members see Google promoting Google-related search results as essentially using its own power to take control of other markets. Google (the search engine) is a search engine used to find information, but by promoting ads to products advertised through Google they also gain leverage over any other industry that wants to be found through search. So it's not that they're doing advertising, it's that they're doing advertising while also being the undisputed leader in search engines. If a company doesn't want to do business with Google, they're at a huge competitive disadvantage against companies that will. That's the sort of situation that triggers an anti-trust suit. You can decide for yourself whether it's fair or not- these are never black-and-white rulings.[/QUOTE] What about TV channels putting adverts out for the shows that will be on their channel? Isn't it exactly the same?

[QUOTE=catbarf;49336176]Oh no, Google's asking Congressmen to write letters to their counterparts in the EU. Democracy is dead. Corruption runs rampant in the 17th least corrupt country in the world. Quick, someone call it 'legalized bribery', it's not a proper lobbying thread until someone does. [/QUOTE] Well its using money to buy influence where they might otherwise not have gotten it. (you try asking congressmen to write letters to MEPs, then try again after making a hefty donation to them, there will be a huge difference) I agree with the rest of your post but I stand by my opinion that buying influence through donations and lobbying is comparable to buying influence via bribery. [editline]17th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=James xX;49336216]What about TV channels putting adverts out for the shows that will be on their channel? Isn't it exactly the same?[/QUOTE] If everyone used that channel to find what they want to buy then yes. Part of the argument (and its potential weakness) is that everybody uses google to search for stuff when they shop. If its true then there is a strong case against google if that can be disproven then the case could get thrown out.

This case wouldn't exist if Google weren't the only good search engine. There's a reason the term "just Google it" exist, although this case is a little bit silly.

[QUOTE=James xX;49336216]What about TV channels putting adverts out for the shows that will be on their channel? Isn't it exactly the same?[/QUOTE] Not really. No one TV channel holds a dominant share of TV viewership, and TV service is the same business that the channel is running. Advertising their own product on their own channel isn't a problem, especially since only products that are paid for are advertised in the first place. Nobody uses a particular TV channel as their sole source of information for what shows are on TV. The issue with Google is twofold: 1. Google is totally dominant when it comes to search engines. When people want to find things, they use Google. Therefore, any company that can't be featured on Google is at a significant market disadvantage. You can't just go to a competitor when Google pretty much runs the show. 2. Google allows paid advertising to skew results. Because of #1, this means that companies that don't pay Google for advertising receive substantially less business. Essentially the problem is that everyone uses Google to find information and expects to receive relevant results, not paid advertisement. By skewing results according to advertising rather than pure relevance, Google is effectively forcing companies to pay up if they want anyone to find them. The EU's argument is that because the Google search engine serves information as its product, it should be serving that information according to relevance, and skewing the results to promote advertising is effectively an act of extortion when Google's overwhelming market share is considered. Nice business you've got there. It would be a [I]shame[/I] if nobody heard about it. I haven't formed an opinion one way or another. Like I said, it's not a black-and-white issue. If Google were a smaller company then this wouldn't have come up but when you effectively own an industry you start to face a lot more scrutiny over how you use that power.

does anyone remember when that lyrics website got smashed by google's search algorithms, and its viewership and intake plummeted it's for shit like that google can end companies with a change to an algorithm.

Please don't ruin google. Google is the only good search engine.

[QUOTE=Mikenopa;49336733]Please don't ruin google. Google is the only good search engine.[/QUOTE] Well if google's results were based purely on merit google would be a better search engine. Its a matter of affordability/business model though.

Google marks ads as such. Where's the issue? Beyond ads isn't it the most relevant results?

Getting rid of the company in europe all together is a bit of an overreaction to fucking ad placements. Ad placements that are fucking LABELED as ads. If you scroll down a little bit you'll get your fucking proper search results. There's obviously more to this lobbying than what this is reporting.

[QUOTE=catbarf;49336176] So it's not that they're doing advertising, it's that they're doing advertising while also being the undisputed leader in search engines. If a company doesn't want to do business with Google, they're at a huge competitive disadvantage against companies that will. That's the sort of situation that triggers an anti-trust suit. You can decide for yourself whether it's fair or not- these are never black-and-white rulings.[/QUOTE] Exactly and this is going to be a trial to determine whether or not what Google is doing is anti-competitive. Just because someone prepared the case doesn't mean it is going to go the prosecutors way and Google is going to try to show how and why what they are doing is not against competition. In any case I think excellent that a company that is as dominant as Google is getting some investigation. I personally don't have any opinions on the case yet since I haven't seen their arguments and counter arguments but overall no matter what the outcome of the case is I think it is a good thing.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49336079]incase anyone wondered why[/QUOTE] This is such a non-problem that I actually laughed.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;49336382]does anyone remember when that lyrics website got smashed by google's search algorithms, and its viewership and intake plummeted it's for shit like that google can end companies with a change to an algorithm.[/QUOTE] No they deranked them because they were cheating the algorithm.

[QUOTE=a-k-t-w;49337394]No they deranked them because they were cheating the algorithm.[/QUOTE] that doesn't change what i'm saying at all i'm not saying that in that case it wasn't justified, it was to demonstrate the power of google

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49336079]incase anyone wondered why[/QUOTE] At least it's not like Bing where it places malware bundle crap ads at the top of the search results when you search for things like "vlc" and "ccleaner" and other popular software.

Fuck this ad company 4 havin 2 many ads! Fuck Amazon for having ads trying to sell me stuff. Fuck da Steam for having ads to sell me gamez. It's like seriously how many services does google provide for free and all it costs is them serving an ad in the result list. Like how do they even expect google to make money without ads?

[QUOTE=Rika-chan;49336137]Google has had sponsored search results like, forever. I mean, Google is an advertisement company at its heart.[/QUOTE] The problem here is that it doesn't actually correctly label these things as advertising. It instead shows them in a higher ranking.

The problem I have with the EU's stance on this is their entire argument is "Google is so big it can't chose what to do on its own website". Either make a ruling that applies to all search engines period, or none at all. Stop going after Google just because they are the biggest. Perhaps more importantly though, why does this need regulation when anyone can easily just use a different search engine. That is the fundamental point I think; using a different service is as easy as typing in a different URL. People keep using Google because it continues to be a good service.

[QUOTE=DELL;49336156]I don't understand how that's a problem. If it's the same as canada google it says there ad's anyways.[/QUOTE] Problem is in ranking the results that are not marked as ads. [editline]17th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=DaMastez;49338007]The problem I have with the EU's stance on this is their entire argument is "Google is so big it can't chose what to do on its own website". Either make a ruling that applies to all search engines period, or none at all. Stop going after Google just because they are the biggest. Perhaps more importantly though, why does this need regulation when anyone can easily just use a different search engine. That is the fundamental point I think; using a different service is as easy as typing in a different URL. People keep using Google because it continues to be a good service.[/QUOTE] I guess you like being fucked over by company's like comcast and AT&T with their obvious cartel deals then? O wait we have Google to save us with Google fibre! Wohoo! Fuck Comcast, ive got fibre! 20 years later google fibre is in 100% of the homes and all competitors are bankrupt due to google's below cost pricing and great speeds. Due to having a monopoly google fibre can now double its price each year because, well people need internet and there is no competition! Internet not costs 50% of your income, and fast internet is only for the rich! But wait, entrepreneur "X" is making its own internet lines to provide a cheaper alternative. Too bad nobody ever hears about it because the only worthwhile search engine is also owned by Google and all other forms of media have been phased out/also bought by Google in 2040. Every step, consumers get fucked and company's win. This is (among other things) what the anti trust law in the EU is looking to prevent and the difference between Capitalism "with a small dab of socialism"(US) and capitalist socialism(EU). [QUOTE=EU law] First, Article 101 of the Treaty prohibits agreements between two or more independent market operators which restrict competition. This provision covers both horizontal agreements (between actual or potential competitors operating at the same level of the supply chain) and vertical agreements (between firms operating at different levels, i.e. agreement between a manufacturer and its distributor). Only limited exceptions are provided for in the general prohibition. The most flagrant example of illegal conduct infringing Article 101 is the creation of a cartel between competitors, which may involve price-fixing and/or market sharing. Second, Article 102 of the Treaty prohibits firms that hold a dominant position on a given market to abuse that position, for example by charging unfair prices, by limiting production, or by refusing to innovate to the prejudice of consumers.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=DaMastez;49338007]The problem I have with the EU's stance on this is their entire argument is "Google is so big it can't chose what to do on its own website". Either make a ruling that applies to all search engines period, or none at all. Stop going after Google just because they are the biggest.[/QUOTE] In theory they could make new rules that apply to everyone, but that's missing the point of an anti-trust investigation. Basically, a company can through entirely legal processes put itself in a position of economic power where it can gradually (or quickly) assert monopoly over an industry. Monopoly is the natural outcome of unchecked free market capitalism, but it's typically regarded as a Bad Thing. So if monopolies are to be avoided, at some point a government has to step in and say 'Good job, you've been extremely successful- but we need to put some limits on you so that you can't completely dominate the industry/several industries at once'. Fundamentally, it's not fair. Yahoo could do the same thing and nobody would bat an eye, not because it would go unnoticed, but because Yahoo doesn't have enough of a market share for it to be a socioeconomic problem. Perhaps the law could be revised to create equal standards for all companies, but that's not the goal of this probe. The goal of this probe is to determine whether or not Google's behavior should be considered unfair- and if they rule that it is unfair, then an appropriate solution can be determined.

[QUOTE=I Am A Rock;49337841]Fuck this ad company 4 havin 2 many ads! Fuck Amazon for having ads trying to sell me stuff. Fuck da Steam for having ads to sell me gamez. It's like seriously how many services does google provide for free and all it costs is them serving an ad in the result list. Like how do they even expect google to make money without ads?[/QUOTE] Read before you post. Not being informed is how Trump voters get born. EU does not want to ban ads, they want to ban Google from quietly ranking search results from allied and paying companies higher in the NON ADS search results. Just like news sites here are banned from displaying paid news reports (ads) as news. [editline]17th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=catbarf;49338707]In theory they could make new rules that apply to everyone, but that's missing the point of an anti-trust investigation. Basically, a company can through entirely legal processes put itself in a position of economic power where it can gradually (or quickly) assert monopoly over an industry. Monopoly is the natural outcome of unchecked free market capitalism, but it's typically regarded as a Bad Thing. So if monopolies are to be avoided, at some point a government has to step in and say 'Good job, you've been extremely successful- but we need to put some limits on you so that you can't completely dominate the industry/several industries at once'. Fundamentally, it's not fair. Yahoo could do the same thing and nobody would bat an eye, not because it would go unnoticed, but because Yahoo doesn't have enough of a market share for it to be a socioeconomic problem. Perhaps the law could be revised to create equal standards for all companies, but that's not the goal of this probe. The goal of this probe is to determine whether or not Google's behavior should be considered unfair- and if they rule that it is unfair, then an appropriate solution can be determined.[/QUOTE] Great explaination.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49336079]incase anyone wondered why[/QUOTE] The US has weak anti-trust laws and Europe has crazy powerful anti-trust laws. Jesus.

[QUOTE=Mikenopa;49336733]Please don't ruin google. Google is the only good search engine.[/QUOTE] If google is left unchecked and becomes the only usefull search engine you might have to pay for every search in the future. These anti trust laws are in fact preventing Google from ruining itself from a consumers point of view.

[QUOTE=taipan;49338778]If google is left unchecked and becomes the only usefull search engine you might have to pay for every search in the future. These anti trust laws are in fact preventing Google from ruining itself from a consumers point of view.[/QUOTE] Alternatives can always spring up in that scenario. Google provides the best service hands down. Thats why its the best. Ads are marked as Ads (here at least) so this should be fine.