Behind a Secret Deal Between Google and Facebook (nytimes.com) 40
Facebook was going to compete with Google for some advertising sales but backed away from the plan after the companies cut a preferential deal, according to court documents. From a report: In 2017, Facebook said it was testing a new way of selling online advertising that would threaten Google's control of the digital ad market. But less than two years later, Facebook did an about-face and said it was joining an alliance of companies backing a similar effort by Google. Facebook never said why it pulled back from its project, but evidence presented in an antitrust lawsuit filed by 10 state attorneys general last month indicates that Google had extended to Facebook, its closest rival for digital advertising dollars, a sweetheart deal to be a partner. Details of the agreement, based on documents the Texas attorney general's office said it had uncovered as part of the multistate suit, were redacted in the complaint filed in federal court in Texas last month. But they were not hidden in a draft version of the complaint reviewed by The New York Times. Executives at six of the more than 20 partners in the alliance told The Times that their agreements with Google did not include many of the same generous terms that Facebook received and that the search giant had handed Facebook a significant advantage over the rest of them.
The executives, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid jeopardizing their business relationships with Google, also said they had not known that Google had afforded such advantages to Facebook. The clear disparity in how their companies were treated by Google when compared to Facebook has not been previously reported. The disclosure of the deal between the tech giants has renewed concerns about how the biggest technology companies band together to close off competition. The deals are often consequential, defining the winners and losers in various markets for technology services and products. They are agreed upon in private with the crucial deal terms hidden through confidentiality clauses. Google and Facebook said that such deals were common in the digital advertising industry and that they were not thwarting competition. Julie Tarallo McAlister, a Google spokeswoman, said the complaint "misrepresents this agreement, as it does many other aspects of our ad tech business." She added that Facebook is one of many companies that participate in the Google-led program and that Facebook is a partner in similar alliances with other companies.
The executives, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid jeopardizing their business relationships with Google, also said they had not known that Google had afforded such advantages to Facebook. The clear disparity in how their companies were treated by Google when compared to Facebook has not been previously reported. The disclosure of the deal between the tech giants has renewed concerns about how the biggest technology companies band together to close off competition. The deals are often consequential, defining the winners and losers in various markets for technology services and products. They are agreed upon in private with the crucial deal terms hidden through confidentiality clauses. Google and Facebook said that such deals were common in the digital advertising industry and that they were not thwarting competition. Julie Tarallo McAlister, a Google spokeswoman, said the complaint "misrepresents this agreement, as it does many other aspects of our ad tech business." She added that Facebook is one of many companies that participate in the Google-led program and that Facebook is a partner in similar alliances with other companies.
Shocked I tell you, shocked! (Score:5, Insightful)
Two of the biggest privacy rapists in tech conspiring together to kill off their competition? I'm shocked!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wront title (Score:2)
Should read 'Ex-secret'.
Re: (Score:2)
I am interested and want to subscribe to your newsletter.
But seriously, you're right about the lack of information in error messages. They're either ambiguous and empty of information, or they're merely references or codes which cannot be decoded because the error codes or additional information has never been published or is non-public for some reason.
I'm kind of thinking that much of the consumer-facing emptiness of error messages results from some combination of a desire to be "customer friendly" and no
OK so the monoplies are colluding (Score:3)
Not that the incoming administration will do anything about it since they are in the monopolies pocket.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Remember though, these guys collude only in the market place, they would never ever decide to collaborate on de-platforming someone or blocking a specific political message, or killing a story, those decisions are all arrived at solely through internal discussions and independent matters of conscience!
Re: (Score:1)
Nicely put. After all, we've been hearing about how these social media companies aren't really monopolies. There ARE other advertising services, right?
It's almost like they're hypocrites or something :/
Re:OK so the monoplies are colluding (Score:4, Insightful)
There ARE other advertising services, right?
Hopefully not. Advertising is a scourge on the internet. It motivates people to think up lying stories to get page views.
Re: (Score:3)
they aren't monopolies. They just hold the largest customer base to a point that using any other service is practically pointless.
You say they are not monopolies and then use the definition of a monopoly to describe them.
The people have spoken. We don't want the government to limit what tech giants are allowed to do.
The people rarely speak in one voice, and I'm quite certain that this view is only that of a vocal minority. I don't want tech giants tracking my internet usage to where I'm getting creepy as fuck targeted advertising on my computer.
Not only are these advertisements creepy as fuck they are so highly targeted to the point of worthlessness. If I buy a pair of shoes online then I get just bombarded with advertisements
Re: (Score:1)
''I don't want tech giants tracking my internet usage to where I'm getting creepy as fuck targeted advertising on my computer.''
Then either opt out, or be more selective with the manner or methodology you use to access network resources. It's really not that difficult. It requires you to also read the TOS for resources offered specifically as to who actually owns the data once it leaves your network.
Generally if you aren't paying for a service, you are the product. But I do agree with you that the bloat is
Re: (Score:1)
You say they are not monopolies and then use the definition of a monopoly to describe them.
Where? The term monopoly means that you are the only one offering the service. It does not mean that you are the most popular vendor.
The people rarely speak in one voice, and I'm quite certain that this view is only that of a vocal minority.
That was sarcasm and so was most of my post. When Twitter and facebook started banning and blocking content from conservatives - the left defended them by saying "they aren't monopolies and they can do whatever they want on their platform". Now all of a sudden they are contradicting themselves when they complain about this.
They are monopolies and there are rules that apply specifically to monopolies.
They aren't monopolies, but I agree that there should
Re: (Score:2)
Where? The term monopoly means that you are the only one offering the service. It does not mean that you are the most popular vendor.
The definition offered was not that they are simply the most popular vendor, the definition was that the use of anything else was "practically pointless". Someone can make an app that is functionally identical to Twitter but if the only people using it is the author and his mom then that doesn't mean Twitter is no longer a monopoly. That's making a distinction without a difference.
Specifically I think they need to moderate content equally if they want to keep their section 230 protections.
I believe that to be insufficient. The rules on what is and is not allowed doesn't just need to be equally applied but they n
Re: (Score:2)
Well said man or woman. /s
Re: (Score:2)
/. has such a bad post editor that it doesn't even put my /s on a new line no matter how many times I press enter.
Re: (Score:2)
The individual states can also pursue antitrust cases, and are already doing so against both Google and Facebook. This just provides them with extra ammunition.
Nothing new here (Score:5, Insightful)
Some years ago FB wanted to build a search engine, and Google was pushing Google+ in the social media space.
Now both companies backed off from those efforts. It looked like a non-aggression-pact was at play, especially since FB's vast store of user data was considered much more relevant for search results than Google's crawled data.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I would assume a Facebook search engine would deliver results in-page on the Facebook site, including landing pages for any results clicked into.
Users that go beyond that would leave anyway, but they get kept inside the ecosystem up to the point, providing Facebook with a ton of useful information.
Re: (Score:3)
''Facebook doesn't want you leaving their website.''
Neither does Google. Ever take notice to query results that show special content result blocks, or enhanced snippets that attempt to answer the query? They are fully designed to engage users and provide mobile users quick answers without the need for further navigation. By default users spend more time on the platform, than using the external resources for a good many queries.
Re: (Score:2)
Some years ago FB wanted to build a search engine, and Google was pushing Google+ in the social media space.
Now both companies backed off from those efforts. It looked like a non-aggression-pact was at play
Good call, it was kind of weird how Google just completely stopped working on Google+ after having a pretty good start (although their good start was partly by hard-pushing people into it).
journalism (Score:2)
I feel like the only sacred part of the journalism profession* is that any allegations of wrongdoing by a large corporate entity will be immediately refuted by any a from that company which is cited verbatim and without critical response
* i.e. it didn't end at the death of journalism largely marked by the 2010 60 Minutes interview with Ben Bernanke
Re: (Score:2)
the death of journalism largely marked by the 2010 60 Minutes interview with Ben Bernanke
I just skimmed through the transcript of that interview, and I can't see anything that suggests it should mark the death of journalism. What are you thinking here?
Re:journalism (Score:4, Interesting)
60 Minutes was known for hard-hitting interviews where they would prepare and ask tough questions. An interview on 60 Minutes could easily be the end of your career.
The interview with Ben Bernanke was more like a press release where the two parties collaborated to present Bernanke's point of view. Of course, Bernanke was single-handedly responsible for the Great Recession, which has an echo a decade later. The press release basically absolved him.
That is the point that I believe journalism mostly died. People born in 2000 basically do not see well-researched, well-planned, adversarial journalism of any kind. At most all we get now are thoughtful analyses mostly from leaked primary sources.
Re: (Score:3)
Too much journalism is merely taking dictation and regurgitating it.
Texas' Attorney General is involved? (Score:2)
I'm sure this case will be well thought out and litigated professionally.
Signifcant penalties, for both of them (Score:2)
A billion dollars each seems about right.
Alternatively:
* Facebook could be required to allow Google and other engines to index them
* Google could be required to give Facebook's deal to everyone
More competition, lower ad rates, win-win for consumers.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Google and Facebook split the lion's share of a $100 billion/year ad industry. Punishing them for not competing with a 1% fine is not a punishment, it's not even a tax or a tip. It's a rounding error.
OK, tens of bullions then... (Score:2)
It's hard to keep the scale of big tech in your frontal lobes these days...
How do you spell conspiracy ? (Score:1)
Wonder (Score:1)
And people don't believe there's collusion (Score:2)
A few years ago, there was an anti-competitive agreement in place to not poach employees (or possibly even easily hire) between something like two dozen big names in that region.
And folks continue to argue that there's just no way things like the deplatformings of Gab and Parler were coordinated.