293
submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] [email protected] 55 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

More interesting is what came out during the deposition: Google straight up changes your search terms to give you results that trigger paid advertisements. Eg if you search for "children's shirts" it will swap for "[brandname] shirts" and show you ads for that brand.

[-] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Does it swap search terms just for the portion that returns the ad or for the search as well? If it's just the ad, that doesn't seem very problematic, just an implementation detail on how it chooses which ad to show. If it's for the search as well, I don't see how that would benefit Google. They wouldn't be able to consider a search result click a successful conversion if it wasn't an actual advertisement.

[-] [email protected] 13 points 9 months ago

I read about this in a blog post on Wired, written by someone who was there (former executive of DuckDuckGo). He also mentioned how they may benefit from having results that aren't quite accurate, as then you spend more time searching, which means more time to serve you ads. There is an inherent conflict of interest between adverts and fast search engines.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago

Paywalled! Fuckin Wired.

He also mentioned how they may benefit from having results that aren't quite accurate, as then you spend more time searching, which means more time to serve you ads.

That's an interesting one, give up a bit of user experience for increased ad impressions. Pretty clever, but breaks all kinds of anti-competition laws if true.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago

I find it really ironic that ads and a paywall are being complained about in the same thread

[-] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Different users lol. I think I'm one of the few Lemmy users that doesn't care about ads...

[-] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

If the ads were targeted to people searching for [brandname] then that would be straight up illegal. Companies would have a slam dunk case in court.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago

That's the thing though, proving it would be next to impossible.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

A subpoena would do the trick. Their employees aren’t going to jail for obstruction to protect Google.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago

You need some reasonable grounds to put before a judge before they'll grant a subpoena. A subpoena can confirm what they suspect, it can't be used to blindly fish for evidence.

However it could be that what was in the deposition gives them the grounds. Should be an interesting trial.

[-] [email protected] 16 points 9 months ago

Google Search, Adsense/Analytics, Android and Chrome should be broken up.

It's feeding the same evil

[-] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


WASHINGTON, Oct 4 (Reuters) - A lawyer for the U.S. Justice Department pressed a Google executive on Wednesday about techniques the search and advertising giant used to push up online advertising prices in an allegedly unfair way.

Testifying at a once-in-a-generation antitrust trial in Washington where the United States has accused Google of abusing its dominance of search and some advertising, Google executive Adam Juda said the company uses a formula, which includes the quality of an ad, to decide who wins auctions that are used to place advertising on websites.

Justice Department attorney David Dahlquist asked Juda if he agreed with a document that Google had prepared for the European Union, which said that the company can "directly affect pricing through tunings of our auction mechanisms."

Juda said one thing that can be "tuned" is a rough formula that gives an ad a long-term value, or LTV, based on the bid given, the potential click-through rate or how many people will likely click on it and the quality of the advertisement and website associated with it.

Dahlquist asked Juda if they had introduced changes to ad sales in a way that raised the cost-per-click by a consumer that advertisers pay.

But Wendy Waszmer, a lawyer for Google, asked Juda on Wednesday afternoon on if there were ways that his ads quality team could raise prices unilaterally.


The original article contains 349 words, the summary contains 227 words. Saved 35%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago

Cool story, ngl I think Jedi Blue is a blacklisted phrase on Reddit, it's not talked about at all and discussion is suppressed. I thought the case went away, but I think it got bundled into the bigger antitrust case. Fuck Google

this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2023
293 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

55935 readers
3451 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS