11mo ago

Google is facing another crucial court case in the US – and it could have major consequences for online advertising.

theconversation.com

Google is facing another crucial court case in the US – and it could have major consequences for online advertising

Technology @lemmy.zip

101 @feddit.org

11mo ago

Google is facing another crucial court case in the US – and it could have major consequences for online advertising.

theconversation.com /google-is-facing-another-crucial-court-case-in-the-us-and-it-could-have-major-consequences-for-online-advertising-238227

33 comments

What if we just got rid of digital advertising altogether in the US? How many issues of privacy, health and personal finance would disappear or be greatly reduced?
It's hard for me to imagine what that would look like or the downsides other than to the digital advertising industry itself.
- Advertising plays an important role in the sale of digital goods and the physical sale of goods through digital means. It's the only way you can really drive traffic to unknown markets.
  Without advertising You're going to be relying on YouTube videos or Google Play store or Apple store to get any sales. Any free online services would probably be a thing of the past. Small businesses would have trouble competing with larger entities can already put products in your face.
  It's not impossible to remove digital advertising and replace it with something else but I'm pretty sure the something else would be worse than what we have already
  
  Targeted advertising, which requires collecting personal information without people's knowledge, is what makes online advertising the absolute worst kind of advertising. That could be addressed on a way that could allow other less malicious forms to exist.
  
  I go through significant efforts to block digital advertising at multiple levels. Yet, I do not find it difficult to discover new things to buy (from both small and large businesses).
  For myself, I suspect most of that is supported through online communities related to my interests and hobbies. Those purchases feel more informed and often more intentional too.
  
  No, advertising is not necessary when a user can search a catalogue with multiple optional constraints, as we did in the olden days of printed catalogues.
  Advertising is harmful - it's somebody trying to persuade you that you need to buy a thing. First, you'll usually know when you need something. Second, the salesman is not someone you'd believe normally.
  It's an interaction which normally should be initiated by you, not by sellers. Which makes advertising utterly useless immediately.
  
  Don't threaten me with a good time
  
  Not only that, but advertising pays the bills for the majority of websites. It's a necessary evil unless people want to pay every website host to see their content.
  
  I wonder how many sales really go down just driven by the dystopian internet ads that pop up into your face or hide half the screen...
No one is forced to use our advertising technologies – they choose to use them because they’re effective.
Like an antlion saying "ants aren't forced to fall into my trap! They choose to!".
Google's advertisement monopoly is directly associated with its other monopolies: browser monopoly, search, mobile OS, video sharing. It can use each of those monopolies to change the rules of the game ever slightly, to prevent competitors from entering or remaining into the market.
- "You don't have to add ads to your webpage, but if you don't nobody will find you using our search engine"
  They be making everyone "choose" to add their ads/trackers to their website
  
  And now they are also making everyone agree to having their data splurged up by the giant monstrosity that is now google: share or die.
  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-08-15/google-s-search-dominance-leaves-sites-little-choice-on-ai-scraping
  All disguised as real choices 😁
This will be interesting to watch and I’m not against it. I just wish they were investigating Royal Dutch Shell, Phillip Morris, Koch Industries, or Goldman Sachs with the same fervor. While Google has certainly done some evil, they aren’t even in my top 100 for evil actors that are exploiting us all to enrich themselves.
- I'd argue they're in the top 2 or 3.
  What they've done is far more insidious than anyone else - much of the world willingly gives everything about their lives to Google, who uses that information (and provides it to whoever they choose) in all sorts of ways.
  We know they've given data to the police which has affected innocent people.
  There's also a question about it's origin possibly being from the NSA, etc.
  This poses as much a threat as anything, and yet most people are completely unaware (and even when they are aware they don't seem to mind because "convenience"), whereas most people have some awareness of the modern-day version of Dutch East Indies company, they just don't think they can do anything about it (unlike Google and the rest of FAANG)
Don’t threaten us with a good time
"> driving out rivals, diminishing competition, inflating advertising costs, reducing revenues for news publishers and content creators, snuffing out innovation, and harming the exchange of information and ideas in the public sphere."
I feel like it is going to be hard to prove that Google's anti-competitive actions have inflated advertising costs. Also, did news publishers lose revenue because of Google or was it Craigslist and jobs sites that killed their classified business?
Google is definitely a monopoly and has acted badly, but proving the harm in this way is going to be tricky. The government should go after them for privacy, the place where they have clearly abused their relationship with the public. Google normalizing spying on users has created the data economy that has resulted in us being spied upon us all the time and having all of our personal data being leaked over and over again.
Too many bells are ringing

33 comments