Hundreds Of Local Papers Are Suing Facebook And Google For Alleged Ad Monopolies

[iceberg]

Hundreds Of Local Papers Are Suing Facebook And Google For Alleged Ad Monopolies

Small-town and local newspapers across the country are suing Google and Facebook, alleging that the tech giants hold a monopoly in digital advertising.

dailycaller.com

Small-town and local newspapers across the country are suing Google and Facebook, alleging that the tech giants hold a monopoly in digital advertising.

Over two hundred publications have sued the tech companies this year, according to a review by Axios, alleging the dominance of Facebook and Google in digital advertising markets have cut into their revenue.
-----
the amount of hits that google, facebook and twitter are going to face are going to add up quick.

 

[FA_Q2]

I do not see how they can sue for it. It is not as though there are any barriers preventing them from entering the market, it is just an intrinsic problem with digital reach. It tends to favor monopolies. If they can prove there was a secret agreement as they charge then they certainly would get some compensation but it would not address the core problem. Companies like FB, Twitter, Google (in certain markets) and several others are damn near natural monopolies. Even when the giants fall, and they do, they are replaced by another that takes the entire space almost overnight. That is exactly what happened to myspace. One day it was essentially just them. The next it was someone else.

How is google or FB going to stop that?

 

[iceberg]

I do not see how they can sue for it. It is not as though there are any barriers preventing them from entering the market, it is just an intrinsic problem with digital reach. It tends to favor monopolies. If they can prove there was a secret agreement as they charge then they certainly would get some compensation but it would not address the core problem. Companies like FB, Twitter, Google (in certain markets) and several others are damn near natural monopolies. Even when the giants fall, and they do, they are replaced by another that takes the entire space almost overnight. That is exactly what happened to myspace. One day it was essentially just them. The next it was someone else.

How is google or FB going to stop that?

defining the damage caused is never easy, esp when you can say "use something else". in this case, what would that be?

now if google doesn't like you, they drop you in their search rankings.

Google Manipulates Search Results, Former Engineer Shockingly Confirms

A former Google engineer has confirmed that Google manually manipulates search results based on its own internal values.

www.ccn.com

Google reportedly manipulates search results to hide controversial subjects and favor big business

A new report in the Wall Street Journal highlights some major issues with Google's ubiquitous search engine, Google Search.

www.businessinsider.com

Google's search leaves users in the dark: DuckDuckGo CEO

If you use Google’s search engine, “There’s no way of knowing what you’re missing,” says Gabriel Weinberg, CEO and founder of search engine DuckDuckGo.

finance.yahoo.com

if i run a newspaper in a town of say 50k people, here's what i can see. in the days of printed media i was the only show in town besides radio. an entire economy was built around that and it employed many others and life went on.

now yes, technology has forever changed this. this is also why we see the big networks become gossip columns because it sells. it gets clicks and they must build a base of clicks because there is a monetary value to that. no one is going to spend 10 clicks agreeing with someone but will "click" a thousand times to tell an idiot they're an idiot.

in this case, who's the bigger fool? the court jester or those paying to tell him he's a court jester? anyway, different topic.

so yes, local revenues for these places has died a horrible death. by and large, if i should choose to survive, then it becomes more vital than ever for me to build a local following in my community to get a base of clicks i can sell. cover local football, be at events to support other local businesses, maybe even start up a live365 radio station and become the media town hub vs. just the local newspaper.

even then you have a lot to compete with which makes your local community involvement critical to success.

so this is all to say i get what you're saying in how were they harmed by google. since this article is behind a paywall, hard to say what their actual complaint is. i do agree if their complaint is the lake ran dry and someone "moved their cheese" - change with the times and find a way. this is a progression of technology forcing change, not google or facebook.

now, going back to the articles above where we know these companies don't play fair in search results, *if* the focus is that their searches come in lower then while they may not have been a target TO lower, the practice of raising others has to lower someone by default.

is the playing field even?

given we have "google analytics" going in great detail on how to properly set your page up for max exposure in searches and given some of these places may have paid top $ to good search results, google/facebook altering the algorhythm behind the scenes suddenly has an impact on my ability to "find new cheese".

google has a 92% lock on internet searches.

11 Top Search Engines to Optimize For in 2024

Discover 11 leading search engines of 2024. Find out where to direct your optimization efforts for maximum impact.

www.oberlo.com

if i am to advertise on the internet, i must go through google if i stand a chance at success. now if google again isn't playing fair and promoting their own services and partner search results over my own, what chance do i have?

so it depends on how they're going about this to me as to whether or not they have a case.

 

[ClaireH]

defining the damage caused is never easy, esp when you can say "use something else". in this case, what would that be?

now if google doesn't like you, they drop you in their search rankings.

Google Manipulates Search Results, Former Engineer Shockingly Confirms

A former Google engineer has confirmed that Google manually manipulates search results based on its own internal values.

www.ccn.com

Google reportedly manipulates search results to hide controversial subjects and favor big business

A new report in the Wall Street Journal highlights some major issues with Google's ubiquitous search engine, Google Search.

www.businessinsider.com

Google's search leaves users in the dark: DuckDuckGo CEO

If you use Google’s search engine, “There’s no way of knowing what you’re missing,” says Gabriel Weinberg, CEO and founder of search engine DuckDuckGo.

finance.yahoo.com

if i run a newspaper in a town of say 50k people, here's what i can see. in the days of printed media i was the only show in town besides radio. an entire economy was built around that and it employed many others and life went on.

now yes, technology has forever changed this. this is also why we see the big networks become gossip columns because it sells. it gets clicks and they must build a base of clicks because there is a monetary value to that. no one is going to spend 10 clicks agreeing with someone but will "click" a thousand times to tell an idiot they're an idiot.

in this case, who's the bigger fool? the court jester or those paying to tell him he's a court jester? anyway, different topic.

so yes, local revenues for these places has died a horrible death. by and large, if i should choose to survive, then it becomes more vital than ever for me to build a local following in my community to get a base of clicks i can sell. cover local football, be at events to support other local businesses, maybe even start up a live365 radio station and become the media town hub vs. just the local newspaper.

even then you have a lot to compete with which makes your local community involvement critical to success.

so this is all to say i get what you're saying in how were they harmed by google. since this article is behind a paywall, hard to say what their actual complaint is. i do agree if their complaint is the lake ran dry and someone "moved their cheese" - change with the times and find a way. this is a progression of technology forcing change, not google or facebook.

now, going back to the articles above where we know these companies don't play fair in search results, *if* the focus is that their searches come in lower then while they may not have been a target TO lower, the practice of raising others has to lower someone by default.

is the playing field even?

given we have "google analytics" going in great detail on how to properly set your page up for max exposure in searches and given some of these places may have paid top $ to good search results, google/facebook altering the algorhythm behind the scenes suddenly has an impact on my ability to "find new cheese".

google has a 92% lock on internet searches.

11 Top Search Engines to Optimize For in 2024

Discover 11 leading search engines of 2024. Find out where to direct your optimization efforts for maximum impact.

www.oberlo.com

if i am to advertise on the internet, i must go through google if i stand a chance at success. now if google again isn't playing fair and promoting their own services and partner search results over my own, what chance do i have?

so it depends on how they're going about this to me as to whether or not they have a case.

Here, here! All corporations acting like illegal monopolies should face fines equivalent to the amount of profit gained from each monopolistic action determined in court. Those monies should go to businesses harmed by these actions. It takes a lot of time and money to fight the good fight.

“A monopoly is when a company has exclusive control over a good or service in a particular market. Not all monopolies are illegal. For example, businesses might legally corner their market if they produce a superior product or are well managed. Antitrust law doesn’t penalize successful companies just for being successful. Competitors may be at a legitimate disadvantage if their product or service is inferior to the monopolist’s.

But monopolies are illegal if they are established or maintained through improper conduct, such as exclusionary or predatory acts. This is known as anticompetitive monopolization.”

Illegal Monopolies | Antitrust Law: What is a Legal vs. Illegal Monopoly

A monopoly is when a company has exclusive control over a good or service in a particular market. Not all monopolies are illegal. For example, businesses might legally corner their market if they…

www.classlawgroup.com

According to the FCC: “The antitrust laws prohibit conduct by a single firm that unreasonably restrains competition by creating or maintaining monopoly power.” If only it were as easy as that sounds to prove predatorial nature and/or exclusionary business tactics in court.

Monopolization Defined

The antitrust laws prohibit conduct by a single firm that unreasonably restrains competition by creating or maintaining monopoly power.

www.ftc.gov

 

[iceberg]

All corporations acting like monopolies should face fines equivalent to the amount of profit gained from each monopolistic action determined in court. Those monies should go to businesses harmed by these actions. It takes a lot of time and money to fight the good fight

A monopoly is when a company has exclusive control over a good or service in a particular market. Not all monopolies are illegal. For example, businesses might legally corner their market if they produce a superior product or are well managed. Antitrust law doesn’t penalize successful companies just for being successful. Competitors may be at a legitimate disadvantage if their product or service is inferior to the monopolist’s.

But monopolies are illegal if they are established or maintained through improper conduct, such as exclusionary or predatory acts. This is known as anticompetitive monopolization.”

Illegal Monopolies | Antitrust Law: What is a Legal vs. Illegal Monopoly

A monopoly is when a company has exclusive control over a good or service in a particular market. Not all monopolies are illegal. For example, businesses might legally corner their market if they…

www.classlawgroup.com

According to the FCC: “The antitrust laws prohibit conduct by a single firm that unreasonably restrains competition by creating or maintaining monopoly power.” If only it were as easy as that sounds to prove predatorial nature and/or exclusionary business tactics in court.

Monopolization Defined

The antitrust laws prohibit conduct by a single firm that unreasonably restrains competition by creating or maintaining monopoly power.

www.ftc.gov

a monopoly alone i don't think can be damning. when you use that monopoly for your own benefit and prevent others from having the same abilities, you enter *that* area.

in any event, it should be an interesting case to follow.

 

[ClaireH]

a monopoly alone i don't think can be damning. when you use that monopoly for your own benefit and prevent others from having the same abilities, you enter *that* area.

in any event, it should be an interesting case to follow.

Yes, you are correct and that’s why I added that quote from the article about monopolies operating lawfully versus illegal monopolies.

 

[FA_Q2]

defining the damage caused is never easy, esp when you can say "use something else". in this case, what would that be?

now if google doesn't like you, they drop you in their search rankings.

Google Manipulates Search Results, Former Engineer Shockingly Confirms

A former Google engineer has confirmed that Google manually manipulates search results based on its own internal values.

www.ccn.com

Google reportedly manipulates search results to hide controversial subjects and favor big business

A new report in the Wall Street Journal highlights some major issues with Google's ubiquitous search engine, Google Search.

www.businessinsider.com

Google's search leaves users in the dark: DuckDuckGo CEO

If you use Google’s search engine, “There’s no way of knowing what you’re missing,” says Gabriel Weinberg, CEO and founder of search engine DuckDuckGo.

finance.yahoo.com

if i run a newspaper in a town of say 50k people, here's what i can see. in the days of printed media i was the only show in town besides radio. an entire economy was built around that and it employed many others and life went on.

now yes, technology has forever changed this. this is also why we see the big networks become gossip columns because it sells. it gets clicks and they must build a base of clicks because there is a monetary value to that. no one is going to spend 10 clicks agreeing with someone but will "click" a thousand times to tell an idiot they're an idiot.

in this case, who's the bigger fool? the court jester or those paying to tell him he's a court jester? anyway, different topic.

so yes, local revenues for these places has died a horrible death. by and large, if i should choose to survive, then it becomes more vital than ever for me to build a local following in my community to get a base of clicks i can sell. cover local football, be at events to support other local businesses, maybe even start up a live365 radio station and become the media town hub vs. just the local newspaper.

This is a different issue though, is it not?

Here you seem to be talking about Google censoring content, not controlling ad revenue through monopolistic abuse. Different issues entirely. Why should Google be forced to display results of an internet search that they are performing with their own hardware on their own servers? Who would determine the order of those results? What metrics should be governmentally imposed to order those results?

Any of those solutions, or any other I can think of, is going to be infinitely worse than what we have and have far reaching effects on the customer. Google won the search wars not because they were fair, open, less controlled or any other way. They won because they return the results the customers wanted in a time frame they wanted it in. It really is that simple - you search for something on google and almost every time what you are looking for is in the first page. That is ONLY because they tailor their results. If customers wanted something unfiltered, they would go to DuckDuckGo. They don't.

However, I must point out again, this is irrelevant to your OP. Google and FB are not being sued for messing with search results. They are being sued for squeezing out ad revenue. That we cant access the complaint directly is kind of a PITA in properly discussing this but from the documents we can access and the limited amount of information on scribbed, I do not see any indication that search results are the issue. Looks more like they are alleging the 2 companies got together to push their platforms over others through backroom deals.

IF that is the case then those companies will clearly have to pay for the violation. It, however, would have no functional impact beyond the case itself. IOW, it will do nothing to stop the demise of those companies advertising revenues. A giant nothing burger even if they had to pay billions as those ventures will not suddenly become profitable. They own the market and something needs to change in the underlying function of the system for it to change that at all.

even then you have a lot to compete with which makes your local community involvement critical to success.

so this is all to say i get what you're saying in how were they harmed by google. since this article is behind a paywall, hard to say what their actual complaint is. i do agree if their complaint is the lake ran dry and someone "moved their cheese" - change with the times and find a way. this is a progression of technology forcing change, not google or facebook.

now, going back to the articles above where we know these companies don't play fair in search results, *if* the focus is that their searches come in lower then while they may not have been a target TO lower, the practice of raising others has to lower someone by default.

is the playing field even?

given we have "google analytics" going in great detail on how to properly set your page up for max exposure in searches and given some of these places may have paid top $ to good search results, google/facebook altering the algorhythm behind the scenes suddenly has an impact on my ability to "find new cheese".

google has a 92% lock on internet searches.

11 Top Search Engines to Optimize For in 2024

Discover 11 leading search engines of 2024. Find out where to direct your optimization efforts for maximum impact.

www.oberlo.com

if i am to advertise on the internet, i must go through google if i stand a chance at success. now if google again isn't playing fair and promoting their own services and partner search results over my own, what chance do i have?

so it depends on how they're going about this to me as to whether or not they have a case.

To be clear, I have no idea if they have a good case and I do not care who comes out on top. What I care about is if the case has any real chance of impacting how things actually work. Otherwise it is just some cash moving from Google to a few soon to be dead local papers - a wash. So we might just be coming at this at different angles.

In that regard there is a debate as to weather or not Google's private property rights to dispense their property as they see fit outweighs the social costs of them having such control. I do not honestly see a solution to the problem atm, any answers just seem obviously worse to me and I default to rights in those situations.

 

[iceberg]

This is a different issue though, is it not?

Here you seem to be talking about Google censoring content, not controlling ad revenue through monopolistic abuse. Different issues entirely. Why should Google be forced to display results of an internet search that they are performing with their own hardware on their own servers? Who would determine the order of those results? What metrics should be governmentally imposed to order those results?

in many ways, same thing. if I search on a subject to buy custom jewelry and Google ranks me low so the can put friends higher, party foul.

Google can kill traffic to your site "at will". prove they do it to your business, you have a case.

Any of those solutions, or any other I can think of, is going to be infinitely worse than what we have and have far reaching effects on the customer. Google won the search wars not because they were fair, open, less controlled or any other way. They won because they return the results the customers wanted in a time frame they wanted it in. It really is that simple - you search for something on google and almost every time what you are looking for is in the first page. That is ONLY because they tailor their results. If customers wanted something unfiltered, they would go to DuckDuckGo. They don't.

I use duckduckgo. it's results without Google weighting results they want you to see.

Google analytics isn't cheap or easy to learn and understand. to spend a ton of resources to rank high in the search results 9nly to not come up til page 15, can you survive?

However, I must point out again, this is irrelevant to your OP. Google and FB are not being sued for messing with search results. They are being sued for squeezing out ad revenue.

and they do this by weighting search results to their favor.

That we cant access the complaint directly is kind of a PITA in properly discussing this but from the documents we can access and the limited amount of information on scribbed, I do not see any indication that search results are the issue. Looks more like they are alleging the 2 companies got together to push their platforms over others through backroom deals.

again, I control the results, you see what I want you to see. this is, using the platform for their gain and your harm. should they be able to do that?

IF that is the case then those companies will clearly have to pay for the violation. It, however, would have no functional impact beyond the case itself. IOW, it will do nothing to stop the demise of those companies advertising revenues. A giant nothing burger even if they had to pay billions as those ventures will not suddenly become profitable. They own the market and something needs to change in the underlying function of the system for it to change that at all.

To be clear, I have no idea if they have a good case and I do not care who comes out on top. What I care about is if the case has any real chance of impacting how things actually work. Otherwise it is just some cash moving from Google to a few soon to be dead local papers - a wash. So we might just be coming at this at different angles.

In that regard there is a debate as to weather or not Google's private property rights to dispense their property as they see fit outweighs the social costs of them having such control. I do not honestly see a solution to the problem atm, any answers just seem obviously worse to me and I default to rights in those situations.

like I said, I believe they have a case. where it goes is anyone's guess.

 

[FA_Q2]

in many ways, same thing. if I search on a subject to buy custom jewelry and Google ranks me low so the can put friends higher, party foul.

Google can kill traffic to your site "at will". prove they do it to your business, you have a case.

No, its not.

There is noting illegal about google curating their results. There is noting anti-trust about it either nor does anything in the brief that we can read ever mention search results.

I use duckduckgo. it's results without Google weighting results they want you to see.

And?

What you use is immaterial to the market. People are not using them and instead are using google because people want curated results.

Google analytics isn't cheap or easy to learn and understand. to spend a ton of resources to rank high in the search results 9nly to not come up til page 15, can you survive?


and they do this by weighting search results to their favor.



again, I control the results, you see what I want you to see. this is, using the platform for their gain and your harm. should they be able to do that?

Should they is an open debate. I certainly think they should, it is their property and they get to dispense with it as they see fit. It is not, however, a debate about monopolies. That is a separate problem. Google can retain the right to curate search results and also be guilty of anti-trust by making backroom deals about adverts.

Do you think it should be illegal for google to sell the top search results? Why would that be any more illegal than a paper selling ads on the front page? Google directly tells you they are advertising their partners.

 

[iceberg]

No, its not.

There is noting illegal about google curating their results. There is noting anti-trust about it either nor does anything in the brief that we can read ever mention search results.

And?

What you use is immaterial to the market. People are not using them and instead are using google because people want curated results.

Should they is an open debate. I certainly think they should, it is their property and they get to dispense with it as they see fit. It is not, however, a debate about monopolies. That is a separate problem. Google can retain the right to curate search results and also be guilty of anti-trust by making backroom deals about adverts.

Do you think it should be illegal for google to sell the top search results? Why would that be any more illegal than a paper selling ads on the front page? Google directly tells you they are advertising their partners.

so Google will set the standards of how to setup your website for optimum search results and then alter the results to favor who they like and you are OK with that.

Google does sell top results but they say sponsored. you know it's an ad. for Google to reduce your results because they feel like it is wrong. it's one thing to pay for top placement in an ad. it's another to be on the first page of returned results because Google likes you.

you can call it "curated" results but its in effect saying who can and can't benefit from there platform.

given they control 92% of searches, you're screwed if they choose to drop you several. pages.

and it's proven they do just that.

you keep saying people want Google to do this bit I don't think you truly comprehend the control Google has over whether a business lives or dies.

 

[FA_Q2]

so Google will set the standards of how to setup your website for optimum search results and then alter the results to favor who they like and you are OK with that.

Google does sell top results but they say sponsored. you know it's an ad. for Google to reduce your results because they feel like it is wrong. it's one thing to pay for top placement in an ad. it's another to be on the first page of returned results because Google likes you.

you can call it "curated" results but its in effect saying who can and can't benefit from there platform.

given they control 92% of searches, you're screwed if they choose to drop you several. pages.

and it's proven they do just that.

And that is true on ALL platforms. All platforms curate the content that is placed there. That is just a fact.

Now, you can say what you actually want is a service like the phone company, a service that simply delivers a method to access the internet. That is not what Google is.

you keep saying people want Google to do this bit I don't think you truly comprehend the control Google has over whether a business lives or dies.

I do comprehend the control they have however my comprehension is not relevant to what people want. That is the POINT of the marketplace, people do not have all the information or even a real understanding of what they want or how to best fulfill those needs. The central idea with capitalism is that the market itself contains that data and responds accordingly.

Essentially, we know people want curated results specifically because those curated results dominate the market almost exclusively. If people wanted non-curated results one of the many companies that did not curate them would have gained all that market share.

Is that good? Well, no I don't really think it is tbh and I certainly do not agree. However, that I think google should fall is not a reason to craft policy to make it happen. Freedom works like that, people are free to do things you or I may think are wrong.

 

[iceberg]

And that is true on ALL platforms. All platforms curate the content that is placed there. That is just a fact.

Now, you can say what you actually want is a service like the phone company, a service that simply delivers a method to access the internet. That is not what Google is.

I do comprehend the control they have however my comprehension is not relevant to what people want. That is the POINT of the marketplace, people do not have all the information or even a real understanding of what they want or how to best fulfill those needs. The central idea with capitalism is that the market itself contains that data and responds accordingly.

Essentially, we know people want curated results specifically because those curated results dominate the market almost exclusively. If people wanted non-curated results one of the many companies that did not curate them would have gained all that market share.

Is that good? Well, no I don't really think it is tbh and I certainly do not agree. However, that I think google should fall is not a reason to craft policy to make it happen. Freedom works like that, people are free to do things you or I may think are wrong.

you keep calling it "curate" - but if i create a method to get you to the top of my results then kick you down for others, is that fair? again, for my business, if i paid damn good money for SEO optimization and google ignores the fact i follow their public guidelines and "CURATES" the results to lower me in favor of others they approve of - THAT IS WRONG AND NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT.

when people say they're going to search for something they say they're going to google it. the brand has become a generic term BECAUSE of it's use and popularity. for you to sit there and say this is fine, everyone does it - well i flatly disagree and don't believe you comprehend what is happening beyond what shows up on the 1st few pages of a search.

do you know what went into creating information for those searches?
do you know what many business must go through at great expense to get higher up in those rankings?
would you do it and follow googles guidelines if you were going to be "Curated" out of existence?

the results need to be based off the system google put in place and says "this is how you setup your website for optimum results in our searches".

they are not doing that. it's wrong, "curated". "curated" here is just a polite way of saying "fucking over people we don't like" and it's also bullshit.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Hundreds Of Local Papers Are Suing Facebook And Google For Alleged Ad Monopolies

Small-town and local newspapers across the country are suing Google and Facebook, alleging that the tech giants hold a monopoly in digital advertising.

dailycaller.com

Small-town and local newspapers across the country are suing Google and Facebook, alleging that the tech giants hold a monopoly in digital advertising.

Over two hundred publications have sued the tech companies this year, according to a review by Axios, alleging the dominance of Facebook and Google in digital advertising markets have cut into their revenue.
-----
the amount of hits that google, facebook and twitter are going to face are going to add up quick.

Bunch of sore damn losers.

Cannot let success go unpunished in the US

 

[iceberg]

Bunch of sore damn losers.

Cannot let success go unpunished in the US

again...

I follow Googles own guide to setup my site for optimum SEO.

I pay damn good money to keep it updated to the constantly changing pieces

Google "curates" me down several pages in searches cause they don't like my politics or whatever reason.

Google raises up people they approve of in searches

is that fair?