Google Could Change Forever
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 вер 2024
- Compare news coverage. Spot media bias. Avoid algorithms. Try Ground News today and get 40% off your subscription by going to ground.news/co...
There seems to be having an onslaught of legal trouble from the US Government. More than any other tech company in the last 25 years. First the anti-trust loss and now a court case over their online ad dominance. What does this all mean for us and what happens next? Today we find out.
Sources: docs.google.co...
ColdFusion Podcast:
/ @throughtheweb
ColdFusion Music:
/ @coldfusionmusic
burnwater.bandc...
Get my book:
bit.ly/NewThink...
ColdFusion Socials:
/ discord
/ coldfusiontv
/ coldfusion_tv
/ coldfusiontv
Producer: Dagogo Altraide
Writers: Dagogo Altraide, Tawsif Akkas
Editors: Brayden Laffrey, Dagogo Altraide
Animator: Mathijs Luijten
When you have to stick the word Reddit into every technical Google search you know it’s broken!
So true. But also it's a weird combo that actually works, because the internal Reddit search engine in their website is trash. But if you use both in combination, it works really well
@@Sajev_sad state of affairs lol
Literally the only way to get answers, otherwise its useless slop on slop or bad information put high in rankings or and crap being sold i could care less about
@@Sajev_ agreed unusual combination that works quite well
And reddit want to block it
There is, without a doubt, a decrease in the quality and relevance of Google search results, over the past 5 years.
Yes. Its horrible now. All about shopping results. Knowledge is neglected.
Try in the last 8 years (2016), and surely before then too.
They forgot the customer. No matter what the customer searches on Google/UA-cam, the customer has to either accept Google sanctioned result or leave the site. The customer is not allowed agency.
It's been a more gradual decline actually. I remember about 8 years ago people complained that Google was starting to prioritize blogs and forums. It's just gotten worse since then. Now Reddit is prioritized over everything else.
@@somali4154the mistake you are making is assuming you are the customer. You're the product.
"There's already rumors that Google Search is indeed getting worse."
No, not rumors, it's been quite apparent for the better part of a decade. Google's search is so bad because of the paid results and how heavily web pages are all optimized for it, it's been basically useless outside of searching for nearby food and it's only good at that because of the maps integration.
It’s even bad at that, all the bought reviews. I use yelp now and even that can be bad too, over 1k+ reviews I don’t trust the reviews and I actually type in the dish I’m interested in to make sure that actual people and not bots enjoyed it
Who even uses Google search in 2024?
@@jomo2483the entire world
@@jomo2483 Ya got any free search engines other than Swisscows that don't rely on Bugle? Duckduckgo relies on it. So does SearX. Bang. Yoohoo. Everything that I know of is Bugle's batch. Doesn't even deserve to be named.
Not to mention censored results
There is no way that a company owning 95% of the market is doing its best for the consumer. It simply doesn't need to try hard anymore.
Yep USA wants capitalism...
So Google is simply applying capitalism to its purest form.
They basically reached the end game/final level
They do what is best for themselves… which is doing what is best for advertisers on their platform… which includes being useful to users of the search engine.
@@SigFigNewton When you have 95% of the market and have data showing that even if you do poorly, increase prices, etc, that people won't leave, you will not try. Why would they innovate when they can just increase prices and decrease quality and still make more money than ever?
@@bumpjammy they’re very much afraid of losing market share
@@SigFigNewton They have data that even if they do poorly, they won't lose any meaningful market share. Did you even watch the video?
I think you're misunderstanding the word "antitrust" at around 2:20. "Antitrust behavior" is not something a company does. Antitrust activity is something the _government_ does, to attack _trusts_ (which are what companies do). A trust is a group of companies that have made an agreement to collude to their mutual advantage, typically in a way that harms the consumer, the archetypal example being agreements to fix prices. So when businesses do something anticompetitive, that's not antitrust activity, that's _trust_ activity. And when the government steps in to prosecute these cartels, that's called antitrust activity. Nowadays, corporate trusts are very rare in the United States. So antitrust law is used mainly to prosecute individual businesses that seem to have a stranglehold on a market, called a virtual monopoly. These laws, which were intended to prosecute cartels, are now used to prosecute individual businesses for using anticompetitive practices to stifle competition, and to break up businesses when they are perceived as too dominant. Those are two separate kinds of action, but they are often intertwined. In Google's case, the latter may be brewing as a consequence of the former. In Nvidia's case, some years ago, the company was prosecuted for its anticompetitive secret agreements with PC manufacturers (which unfairly hindered competitors like AMD from competing), but the business itself was not broken up by the government. Just forced to pay a fine and do some "corporate culture" BS to "teach executives that this is not allowed to make sure it doesn't happen again," as if they didn't know it was illegal when they did it lol.
He;s not "misunderstanding" as he's been doing this for years; He's misrepresenting the truth on purpose. Look at the people he's interviewed for the video - the ONLY people he interviewed, Gogle investors who are afraid their pockets will be badly affected. David Friedberg even has a photo of breadlines from a communist regimne for his background. How much more hamfisted can it get than that??
Thanks for your effort in enlightening us! Would you say that this ruling, if successful against Google, would be the first major step to their demise?
Your argument fell apart as soon as you said ...
"companies which appear to have ... "
In the USA, we don't take action against companies which merely appear to have broken the law, but rather, only against companies which have been determined to have ABSOLUTELY broken the law.
@@scotthullinger4684 They first must appear to before you can determine that they did. Your argument fell apart the moment you forgot that time flows in one direction.
@@Omniverse0 - This is precisely why we have WRITTEN HISTORY, which is something that a huge portion of the world constantly makes every attempt to destroy. Since the topic is supposedly Google ... I'll just say that Google is currently and by FAR the most EVIL company on planet earth. GOOGLE is hell bent on re-writing human history by exposing everything evil which they agree with, while simultaneously and very deliberately making every attempt to destroy access to verifiable TRUTH of the sort which SERVES us most of all - TRUTH WHICH GOOGLE HATES - rather than the fake news variety of shit which Google constantly peddles and supports. If you Google a topic which Google disagrees with and does not support, then your search results may be virtually empty, or else they're found on page 100 of your search.
The fact that "time flows in one direction" is entirely immaterial to your argument.
Yeah, it's a nothing burger, pal -
And NO company needs to "appear before me" in order for me or for other people to determine that Google lies and pedals shit information, etc.
We have a justice system. If companies break the law ... then somebody out there will very possibly file lawsuits against Google.
Google is in fact a monopoly of information with essentially NO competition, and for this reason, Google should ABSOLUTELY be dismantled in some fashion. Google is quite like Pravda media, rather than one of the 31 sample flavors at Baskin Robbins ice cream.
90% of my Google searches now end with “reddit”
ironically, google search and reddit have formed a symbiotic relationship in that way. each platform is useless without the others' shortcomings. if google search actually worked i'd never visit reddit ever again. if reddit was uncensored, i'd never use google search ever again.
Calls on rddt then?
Lately, I’ve also noticed that people often search for reviews or experiences, and Reddit has many users sharing them. I think platforms like this will be a gem in the AI space. Questions like 'Who is the father of the atom bomb?' are old. Now, we want to do more with search, leveraging the capabilities of AI-like copying and pasting entire problems into a search engine and expecting comprehensive answers.
Google is so shit at actually showing specialized review websites and specialists, that reddit ends up as the only viable place. There are plenty of high quality and reasonably active forums for specialized topics, but if all google feeds you is a Forbes Top 10 BEST CAMERAS [affiliate links galore edition] than it’s useless.
And Quora
I mean killing adblockers and not cleaning malware from their adsense network is clearly not a good or "innovative" thing to do
They can detect absurd things with their moderation AI. It is a choice to not deal with bots (inflate numbers) and malicious advertisements. They are doing it because they have no competitors and no legal responsibilities for anything they are paid to promote.
Ad blockers work fine in Chrome. Google hasn't killed them for precisely because of anti-trust concerns.
Ad blockers still work
@@dmhendricks No, they work *for now* .
The upcoming Manifest V3 update to Chromium will basically cripple most advanced Adblock algorithms.
@@dmhendricks Isn't it because they have not released that one update yet?
They broke up standard oil because they were a monopoly -how google has been allowed to operate in the same fashion for years is mind boggling
Look specifically at what standard oil got in trouble for and you will find it was over rebates to big customers. They refused to ship oil fairly at a flat rate benifetting the biggest customers and forcing the little guys to sell to them or go out of business. Which is why my jaw hit the floor when I found about about the payments to apple and samsung to remain the default. It's the same shit standard oil got in trouble for.
Lobbying
@@thebigbadwulf1 the best part is standard oil should have had a WAY worse fate than that alone, they were one of the makers of leaded gasoline
@@thebigbadwulf1 This is a simple combination of a short list of elements: greedy and tech illiterate politicians, lack of regulation when it comes to industries that become a thing withing a short period of time, greedy shareholders that push corporations to do whatever necessary to bring in massive profits, and finally the people within the corporations at the helm with no spine and willing to do whatever the shareholders will enjoy. All of those are true, and we have what we have now.
Ironic, isn't it ? They used to say: Data is the new oil
Google doesn't even show proper search results anymore.
I have just one problem with Google. No, two:
1) killing of its products - the Google graveyard
2) privacy issues/snooping that come with stalking in the name of ads, going a bit too far in this regard.
i mean the way their company youtube obviously is listening to you! people actually believe the algorithm is really good lol
@@holliefitzzz I'm really tired of bots - they aren't good. But the reality is - they won't go away, only you can walk away from resources employing bots to decide content for you.
Google’s motto used to be “don’t be evil”
@@dx-ek4vr Corporate scumbaggery is the mantra now. It's how apple became a success with a huge payout from Microsoft. Without them they be dead. It's now a corporate obligation made possible by law courts paid for by lobbying government officials.. A small investment with huge rewards. True evil.
"used to be" is the keyword here.. someone changing their motto from that should be a hige red flag
That didn’t age so well.
And, organizationally speaking, it had the character to redact that motto. That's due significant respect.
Then they changed it for a short while to : 'Do the right thing'.
Now they don't have a motto anymore.
If they were a monopoly merely because they were the best, they wouldn't need to employ anti-competitive tactics.
I cannot find a flaw in your statement.
Steam sure as hell doesn't need to.
Obviously. That is the entire argument of the case - whether or not their success is due to anticompetitive practices.
problem is google is not one entity, it is made of people. some guys are responsible for improving the product, others have time to think of how to make life for competitors difficult.
@@willi1978 Which all gets funnelled to senior managers to make decisions on. Just because a company has different divisions and companies under it's umbrella, it doesn't mean they aren't arching to the beat of the same drum.
I for one feel like Google Search, Chrome, and UA-cam have all taken a turn for the worse over the past few years.
the solution I use is: DuckDuckGo, Brave browser, and grayjay_by_futo
**past decade*
-for one- along with tens of millions of others
You can still get yt premium and manipulate the algorithm to your liking but I hear you.
Its not just the past few years. Who would think that employing ex govt employees to run things would be a gppd thing?
Especially when the first thing they change is the whole don't be evil!
"Europe pays a high price for its overregulation of the digital economy"
No, it's US citizens who pay a very high price for being at the mercy of improperly regualted companies.
True. We have protection that dictate how much fruit needs to be in a product for it to be called juice. Which is a great thing when the harvest are going badly and they start putting less fruit and more sugar in their product. They now have to call it something else.
I agree. From a consumer perspective, it seems to work quite well, especially compared to the U.S. Even though banking, internet and mobile networks are heavily regulated, very few of those business seem to be heading for bankruptcy.
@@Summer_and_Rain That and that the companies have to put an actual list of ingedrients on every product. You still can sell shitty products in the EU, you just have to tell the consumer "hey, this is a shitty product". I don't really see the downside here, it's good for the companies that make good products.
Amazon needs a bigger antitrust thing than Google does. Not on the customer side of things, but on the sales vendor side.
Google search has lately so worsened.
In addition to that, most people started to use chatgpt more than Google (myself included), and Google doesn’t have the best ai in the market.
“Lately “
Worsened lately google search indeed has
such has it?
Skill issue?
Google be like 3 Billion results. Only loads 8 results and no more results
this☝☝☝
Sometimes we search for something we knew before only to find the website no where in sight. I guess these are all added to the database before they are killed off. There are zero good search engines that do not use Google in some way.
I think it trying to say it gone through 3 billion results for your keyword and loads up 8 "best" results. not defending google in any way i know search results are thrash.
Lol fr 3 billion results and 99% of people won’t go past the first page 😂😂😂😂
@@LaSombraanaah i worked at google, the results number is just randomized so to boost sales
Google Search, Google Chrome and YT used to be by far the best products in their respective categories. That's why everyone flocked to them. Then they started making their products worse and bloated with ads to the point that they only barely do what they were made to do. The longer they can keep you from finding the answer to your search, the more ads you will see.
Not only that, but google search has biases and censorship built into it.
Maps is clunky af now too
The thing is , it easy to say that but it genuinly hard to keep a company running without money. These firms are so full of add cus they need to stay afloat. Go read upabout how youtube is actually losing money for google just to keep things free and allow adblockers too. im sure many of their products are losing too. I feel like their action are justified to some extent. Although i agree they may need to restructure tho
Get brave browser.
@@jessedondamuri7392 Cool story bro, I had a look for under 20sec, and found an article titled "Alphabet Reports 29% Jump in Profit as A.I. Efforts Begin to Pay Off" from a month or 2 ago and then in 2022 titled "Alphabet’s profit increased 36 percent, to $20.64 billion, in the fourth quarter."..
It's always really frustrating to see a conversation say you don't break up a company unless they've done bad. You break them up because they drive up prices and stifle innovation. That means we're all paying more for less because those monopolies keep new players out. We don't even know what we've missed out on because monopolies have taken that from us. They don't have to actively be doing harm. The very nature of being a monopoly is harm enough.
Well said. Their new motto 'be evil in any way for the shareholders' is not going over well in the public.
Google singed a billions of dollar contract with the NSA in 2019.
And we had NO insight into what it was about!
Nuff said!
Spying on Americans I’m sure even that data is a chore to navigate through especially modern google.
Where you otherwise involved when it came to national security projects for the NSA or CIA?
Google is well known a technological weapon for their government.
May be Cloud services?
Interesting
For those wondering: Firefox was born on being trampled over. Netscape Navigator would die around the time of the case and be reborn as Firefox.
Netscape Communicator was open sourced and rebranded Mozilla. Mozilla then went on to do a big rewrite project called Phoenix which eventually became Firefox.
Wat
@@auraguard0212 a lil bit of internet history
Firefox is awful and Mozilla sells your data like any other company.
My website completely died after Google’s August 13th algorithm! Web traffic was cut in half from their last change. Now we’re getting nothing and they’ve completely killed my 11-year business.
I build websites and do seo.
Your site probably fails lighthouse scores?
As well as Google Analytics 4?
How sure are you that your site's correct?
We also do marketing and can see search volumes they still there, but most of our clients coast along fine on SEO.
What kind of business do you have?
Yeah, that's the risk of building your business on someone's platform. Time to start spending on them ads, or find a new way to generate traffic.
He didn't said it's on Google platform. He could have a business and only host a site for promotion and marketing. And without hits of clients, no new customers will come.
@@morro190 he forgot it i guess, can't find any darrengs
what did she meant ?
2:50 dude Google has has 90%+ market share for over a decade. This is way overdue.
What is stopping you from using another searvh engine
@@CapedBojjiGoogle lol. They shut down all their competitors.
@@CapedBojji Google.
@@CapedBojji Way to fail to understand the problem.
@@CapedBojji googles search engine is actually one of the worst today for many reasons
Break it all up. Separate UA-cam, Search, Chrome, and Android. UA-cam is seriously the only game in town and the censorship that has led to crimes, anatomical names, types of death, Second Amendment content, and more is ridiculous. I’m tired of hearing SA’d and unalived. These things have correct terms.
You're funny.
"unalived" is hilariously childish on the brink of parody.
but your very very naive to think euphemisms dont exist in the english language. there are a few already for the terms you take issue with.
thats not censorship at all.
I've worked in the ad business for 28 years and I can tell you when ad rates go up, it trickles. The sellers and corporations dont take a loss, you and I pay the hike. Keep that in mind when google's pals say its a victimless crime.
Amazon and facebook should be next
Facebook ruined Instagram
Amazon first
Facebook, I mean Meta, it’s already dying in any case, the product keeping them alive is Instagram
Facebook can totally redeem itself by going back to its roots. There is potential. Just kidding 😅
Uber as well!
I'm old enough to remember when AT&T had been broken up because it had been a monopoly.
But AT&T bought almost all itself back
We had Telecom here in Australia the gov split it down the middle
Same
@@DaveC1983. No they didn't they privatised it and sold it. Telecom was Government owned mate. It was a Tax Payer a owned asset.
In fact it has several mergers in its history but from memory it was never one time split down the middle.
Can you provide me some keywords to search so I can see where you got that information? I tried looking myself but no combination of words would pull a result that even alluded to me being wrong.
Telstra was Telecom. Optus was never part of Telecom and their only business relationship was that one of the Optus investors was one of the companies who worked with the post master general and that Telstra took over the old telecommunications buildings they left empty when that happened.
So I don't know why you brought a company up that was government owned and ran. And our government sold and allowed to become a privately traded company that DID have a monopoly. But when Optus came out provided direct competition to them and stopped the monopoly.
Maybe that's what you meant? But Optus was/is a foreign owner conglomeration. That's previously had ties to Australian Telecommunications but until Telstra it was privatised LITERALLY COULDNT compete.
That's different to a monopoly. Government owned telecommunications system are typically less predatory that the least predatory Telecom companies.
Being a monopoly is legal in the US, it's because Ma Bell abused it's monopoly status and acted in an anti-competitive manner. We won't punish you for natural success we will if you cheat.
I am an SEO, I have observed quality articles go down and get replaced by poorly written articles for many sites. Only way out for businesses is to invest in ads. Last year Google's search algo update resulted in many quality sites loosing 90%+ traffic within days because Google considered those sites "unhelpful". Thereafter, it started showing Reddit (with which Google has its own alliance) in those top search results. Monopoly isn't necessarily bad, considering monopology is a proof of success, but using monopoly to build anti-consumer behavior is a bullshit.
I really hope Google gets broken into 4-5 companies and search can be made better again.
Ah yes reddit --- where everything when you find on search -- DELETED info
I understand your concern from industry perspective but from a consumer pov i find Google very comfortable and easy to use, whats the incentive for me to switch to Bing (which lacks a lot) or others?
Its not as if users dont have other options rn, the public believes in the product hence they use it compared to other services
@@Bullminator - and heavily heavy handed “moderated”
Nah, monopolies are always bad. They afford the business an unacceptable amount of control over their customers, because there are no other options.
monopolies are bad. period. end of discussion.
I hate that google took over UA-cam. UA-cam was so much fun back in the early days. You could even send others users email. But Google removed that, why?
i remember than 2013
@@HDReMaster right
what's up with this anti-success argument? Makes no sense. It's anti-competitive because now if I'm a business owner, I have to lose way more to advertisers such as Google, which makes it more difficult for me to run my business.
And most of us will never know your business exist, because it is impossible to find any new information. I search for something and I often get so annoyed that I stop looking for it.
Exactly. Anti-success for Google but what about thousands of startups/businesses paying a higher advertising price to google, making Google more successful? It is anti-competitive for the businesses paying ad revenue because if there was at least one another player, I would have hoped the ad price gouging wouldn't be like how Google is doing currently.
That guy must be a libertarian. In the mind of those people, all government intervention is automatically bad. Even when confronted with the evidence that Google misused its market position, it still gets glossed over. Why? These people want to believe the market is infallible, thus it must be 'jealousy' or something like that when power abuse is being taken on.
That guy is probably a libertarian. In the libertarian worldview, markets are infallible and all government intervention is doomed to fail. Even when presented with overwhelming evidence of how abuse of ones position in the market can lead to misery for other participants, it gets ignored. Instead, these types turn to 'jealousy' or 'anti-success' to avoid having to talk about it.
I don’t understand your argument. Advertising is an investment that businesses make, and Google offers the best return on investment.
The dude at the end (19:00) is wrong. Ingenuity comes with competition. Why should Google maximize their developmental departments if there is no reason to do so because there is no competition?
And they won't. Because innovation means research and development costs. And why would you bother with that? You can pay a fraction of said costs to your competitors to stay put and enjoy the market for pretty much yourself. It's exactly what was found during the case with Google now, and it's been a thing for years.
Of course the big money guy thinks the big money company is good :)
Preach like we should not take investor opinion with any seriousness
@@RhythmGamer seriously the only time I’ve met investors they’ve been dumb asf and didn’t know what they were talking about, just because you got money doesn’t mean you’re smart.
Fact of the matter is maximizing shareholder value almost always ends up being bad for everyone but them.
I agree. Clearly a fanboy, like Muskrats.
In the UK the Labour party is introducing legislation to make company directors *personally responsible* for the actions of the companies they direct. It's high time this was widened to all companies everywhere.
UK is not like the USA in power and attractiveness. Draconian laws there means no business
@@moneyobsessedhow is holding decision makers responsible for those decisions 'draconian?'
@@moneyobsessed
USA is Corporatist outside of the FTC and bits of the DOJ.
It's why liberty is Swiss Cheese unless you're either rich and are backed heavily by money or connections.
@@justicar5
Given Boeing... Must be the wind.
The UK has been a clown show for the past decade. No company would care to lose them.
Amazon could also be split up. Separate companies for the store, cloud services, Amazon branded products, transportation, and warehouses.
Now that I will 100% back up because I think Amazon is ridiculous on the amount of money they’re making and the monopoly they have.
Maybe, but that would have a dramatic effect on the Amazon web store and the associated delivery service. As I understand it, the store and the associated delivery service actually lose money every year, but they are being kept afloat by the huge profits that Amazon Web Services make every year because they are a useful service that consumers like to use, which keeps Amazon in their good graces. The same was true with UA-cam back in the day. It lost money every year from the time that it went online until Google broke themselves up into the Alphabet company in 2016. You can trace the start of the degradation in the quality of UA-cam back to that exact time, when it was first forced to become profitable on its own and couldn't rely on the Google search and add business to continue to bank-roll its losses. It was forced to make heavy handed modifications to the recommendations algorithm to prioritize advertiser friendly content with the highest mass market appeal in order to generate more revenue, and had to bow down to all of the advertisers' whims in order to keep their balance sheet in the black. I believe something similar would probably happen to the Amazon web store as well, and most of us might be worse off because of it.
Make it so
Amazon have completed whit TEMU so it not gonna happen
How can it be anti-success if that success is predicated on things like stiffling competition, unjustified price hikes and corporate bribery?
It happens when your mind is getting high on libertarian dogma's. If markets cannot fail - at least if you assume that is reality - then you automatically get these types of weird defense.
The most outrageous thing Google did to me was blowing my left eardrum while going up 27 stories in an elevator to their office for an event.
That thing went 27 stories in literally 7 seconds. It HURT like crazy.
I miss the days when Google would be focused on new and interesting things. Instead of blue sky projects they now spend their time with blinders on, working or either making mainstay products worse, or just cancelling them.
i know i love the guy saying that this lawsuit is just anti-success as if theres any real success in deliberately making your product worse
@@holliefitzzz THANK YOU! I couldn't have said it better.
When they quietly got rid of the simple motto "Don't be evil" we all knew what was up!
And when questioned why, one of their answers was, "Because it was ridiculous." Uh huh. Writing was on the wall.
They never got rid of this motto. It’s still Google’s motto. You’re confused because Alphabet, parent company which owns Google, has a different motto.
They were always evil. They just took the mask off.
@@mina86 ANd just what motto is that? "Give us your money, personal information and soon to be Liberty"?
@@jefferyyounce5372, "Do the right thing."
Honestly, I think that Google being broken up would be for the better. It is such a dominating force not only in private life, but even in schools. They really needed this kick in the ass to get their act together.
I don't disagree... but Google has developed many great products like affordable Chromebooks as well as free Chrome OS, free Gmail, Docs, and Drive, and lastly Android to compete with iOS.
I don't think these products would be able to exist if Google didn't do business the way they did. Not saying its "right", but we can't expect to benefit from all these free products without the price being paid in some other way.
Global monopolies & it's hegemonic oligarchs serve no good purpose.
Corporations represent psychopathy in structural form. Ask, Dr Robert Hare.
Capitalism exists to make profit, period. The worship of psychopathy & greed, in the corporate captured West is why we are, where we are, today.
You are a bot, in a Chinese phone farm.
@@floralkami2860 and you... are simping for big tech for free?
@@thebasketballhistorian3291 yeah and most of these great products act as tracking tools for Googles Ad Network...
David Friedberg's take is very pro monopoly. Anti-success would trigger if a company had more market share than any competitor. That could be 12% share when the nearest competitor has 8%, but to claim anti-success for a company with 90% of the market is ludicrous on the face and just whining because 'regulation bad'. Which has been happening for so many decades at this point, that it is just reflexive.
Look at his background too; he set a picture of Communist Breadlines as his background. His opinion doesn't get more obvious than that; "If we let this go through, it's communism!!"
“Competition is good for everyone” except when it comes to the Fed. That monopoly is always allowed!
At one time Google was really good. But if you use their search engine or maps the emphasis now seems to be on ad revenue and pushing paying customers. I don't see much innovation coming out of Google. Despite what the experts say in this video, monopolies stifle innovation.
The emphasis has always been on revenue and paying customers... sort of like every other business in world history.
I'm at a point where I don't think google cant be innovative anymore
@@WadeDorminy My point isn't that Google isn't trying to optimize profit, but that people tend to think of their products as they once were not as they actually are. Adam Conover does an excellent video on how Google search was once optimized for relevancy but now is biased towards paying customers.
For every monopoly or duopoly in business, the companies involved offer some justification about "all the good that we do". However, it's a fact that over-concentration of power in business leads to greater inequality in society and less choice for consumers. Google's monopoly needs to be dealt with. In fact, it should have happened sooner. For quite some time, people in government were drinking the Koolaid about tech companies being a force for good in the world and that they should be left to "innovate" without much regulation. My career has been in tech, but definitely the "force for good" is long gone. I'm not anti-tech, but tech businesses should be held to the same scrutiny as historic monopolies such as railroads and oil.
Removing monopoly power could short-term hurt the biggest companies, but the forces for innovation will eventually find ways to adjust to more competitive environments. Consider what could happen if companies making search engines knew they HAD to make better browsers because their competitors were also improving theirs?
Your logic should be applied to the disparities in income to. You mentioned "Duopoly", American politics is a perfect example of how our country has been in a spiral downward. The 1% have the Stock market rigged with high frequency trading. The US Healthcare system is another example of our lousy systems in general. Citizens United has corrupted the political system with the help of Corporate lobbies. We are in BIG trouble, but nothing will change until our younger generation take to the streets.
Google's search results have been getting worse and worse for at least a decade now. I saw somewhere that they dont even actually search for what you put in, but instead search with thier own text to optimize revenue.
Google prioritizing payed results actually sent my dad to scammers in India
As someone who's been running ads on Google since 2005, I've definitely noticed the increase in cost per click over the last few years. It impacts everything.
Maybe if fines were more steep and actually had an impact, tech companies might change. A $500,000,000 fine is a rounding error on Google's yearly revenue.
$50 bil seems good. People need to learn from Europe fines to a Apple
Heh, tines are a tax write-off.
@derekblackthorne Unfortunately, at the size fines often are, said fines are treated as a cost of business. They need to be adjusted by quarterly income for a given entity.
@@vidal9747 Billions. Precisely. Make it HURT.
Fines to companies should be in percent of company's profit, not an absolute amount
What about Walmart, Amazon, Nestle, Johnson & Johnson?
What about Disney??!!
Mostly likely they are going to say that those Companies are ran separately from their parent company, at least with Nestlé. Amazon is a choice you can shop at brick and motar stores. That's just my guess. In my city Walmart is not the top dog. HEB is and has been for years. They are a private family owned company.
@@poeticsilence047 Amazon however restricts sellers to NOT allow lower prices on other sites.
Nestlé is absolutely not a monopoly by any definition
@@apc9714 I agree. They just own over 2,000 brands. No monopoly energy over there
they should break it up - any absolute power is always abused
I think Amazon is a bigger problem than Google
What is the absolute power that google allegedly retains?
HA! I love the irony of you advocating for absolute power while also opposing it. Gotta love NPCs.
@@bigahr-gu7ei bot
Yah break it up have them destroy their business so they start making UA-cam paid only. Or they start capping your free Google searches to 5 per day, or they make you pay for Gmail, or they make Google maps paid. U guys just love to destroy stuff that doesn't need to be changed.
Google has also been leaching from open source for a long time too!
They take Android Open Source, then slap Google Play onto it.
Oh and ChromeOS is just Linux, Debian specifically. However you can‘t even install Linux apps out of the box!
Plus Chromium is open source, but it’s just Chrome, meaning Chrome leaches off the hard work of volunteers that improve Chromium.
The whole philosophy of open source is that everybody who contributes gives back to the community so that everybody benefits. However Google just takes and only gives for good PR and only when it needs to.
break up all these corporate monopolies not just in tech and see how the economy booms
So they are being broken up because they were lying to get more money from the advertisers?
They certainly made their search engine worse and they are extremely biased.
That's why they're in trouble; using bots to boost fake numbers so they could charge advertisers more for ghost accounts. And not just YT...
Get more from the advertisers
Who do you think pays for the increased cost
Consumers compaines pass the cost straight on to them
@@Dan-mm1yl that's supposed the point of competition. If you're selling a shirt for $5.50 and your advertisements just went up, you can pass that along. But the next guy who doesn't move from $5.50 will start to sell more shirts now.
Watching this on a Google platform is wild, lol.
Google's monopoly isn't just over interest searches.
hi. thats because theyre a monopoly. get it now?
Well, Google's search engine has become quite poor over the last 10 years !
The only reason Google is in trouble is because they're messing with the search results of major corporate players. "This country was founded on the principle that no one man could hold all the slaves himself; he had to share them with his friends!" -Cartman, South Park
My comments are disappearing.
Tldr: google leaches from open source projects.
Chromium is chrome, android is open source but only the barebones, and ChromeOS is Linux.
Coldfusion is deleting comments. What a time line we live in...
Chromium is the core of Chrome, that Google released as open source in 2008 and are still the primary maintainers of.
Android is also developed by Google, had its first open source release in 2007, and is still maintained by them (altho vanilla android isn't very usable but that's a more complicated topic on how android-based operating systems are developed nowadays).
ChromeOS is based off the open source project ChromiumOS, which was, you guessed it, developed and maintained by Google. And yes, ChromiumOS is Linux based but the entire point of Linux is that you can easily fork any other Linux based OS and customize it for yourself.
And really that's the point of open source. You can easily take anyone else's code and use it to make your life easier.
Everyone does it. It's what makes a good software engineer. I don't like Google but calling this "leeching" is disingenuous.
Oh also, Android is also technically Linux-based.
@@RayTsou I call it leaching because they take the benefits of open source, such as free labour, but doesn’t give back, or at least not as much as the amount have taken. They keep the knowledge and profits for themselves. Sure they might maybe donate, but that’s for good PR.
Isn’t free and open source supposed to share the knowledge and benefits together, not keep it for themselves?
Also if I am wrong about ChromeOS being Debian based then it’s because I heard that from some video on UA-cam, not the main source.
Sure you can call it lazy, I won’t protest to that, but at the end of the day it’s my opinion I suppose.
Of course, it’s okay to make profits from open source, however I feel like it’s being done in a way that what is being taken, is heavily more than what little is being given back.
While you can gain knowledge from Google’s code, they have also done anti-competitive measures to ensure people can‘t share the benefit.
In other words, it’s a closed source program pretending to be open source, because technically Chrome is just Chromium but with Google’s stuff on top. It kinda feels like Google is cheating in that regard. As google gets the benefits of both closed source and open source but without the drawbacks.
@@NOACCEPTANCE772 they’re not, it’s UA-cam.
@@RayTsou also I originally wrote a huge arguement on the matter, explaining why I thought so, but UA-cam’s automod has me flagged for some reason and sometimes deletes my comments. I had to reduce it to a TLDR.
Note how the DOJ's focus was the monopoly's impact on advertisers, not users like us. Cheer about the verdict all you like, none of the parties involved has consumer interests in mind.
There are many tech companies that hold a monopoly and need to face anti-trust regulations, from Amazon to Uber.
Cab companies, bus, train, rolled skates, skateboard, walking, bike, cars, planes, subway, street car, Lyft.... Buddy just cuz you only use a Uber don't mean it's a monopoly.
Walmart, Costco, 7/11, eBay, (every store with a website) Amazon not a monopoly either. You are just a hater.
People like to come after Google, but leave Apple alone.
Uber is absolutely not a monopoly lol
I hate Google but it's so hard to get by without using it. It listens, filters, and advertises to us in ways we don't even know. They should start with separating Google and UA-cam from each other.
True but who's gonna buy UA-cam? Elon Musk? Maybe not. Or maybe Yahoo? 🤔
@@wazzup233 The bigger question is who is going to pay for maintenance of yt. It's no secret yt is not profitable. As much as i don't like google, internet without yt would suck
if they did that, UA-cam would cease to exist. The cost of infrastructure alone to serve videos (let alone in 4K) is VERY expensive. Mainly due to the fact that everyone can upload an almost unlimited amount of footage for free. Remember, like 9 out of 10 videos on YT have less than 100 views.
@@PvtAnonymous YT could be rebuilt/restructured. I don't see any problem with letting ancient videos expire and be removed. (Or those from users who haven't uploaded / logged into an account for some time.) If users want them people will find a way to back it up. It isn't Google/YT's responsibility to be a permanent archive of petabytes of mostly trash. Popular and regularly viewed content of any age and resolution could be ranked and prioritized for storage. Do that and there goes a huge part of the storage needs. Then content creators can (and I think should) assist in the hosting by means of a P2P system with their own small servers online all time at home. You want to make it big and make money, then invest on your end too. If you are a popular creator you have high speed internet available and distributing the network among many more systems just makes sense. Users could also be enlisted to help with the hosting and data transfer needs, especially if they are not paying subscribers. (It could even be a chrome extension providing the backend so while you browse, YT is being helped.)
If you separate UA-cam from Google UA-cam will shut down. Did they ever make money with UA-cam?
If you search "German Shepard" Google will show you a Yorkshire terrier before an actual German shepherd. That's how useless it's become.
That's simply not true
Breaking up Standard Oil didn't help as the Rockefellers still remained the largest shareholders as well as important positions in the executive boards of the 39 oil companies (as a result they held onto their monopoly in the oil industry) not to mention that they had diversified their oil wealth by investing into other businesses. Those who think that breaking up Big Tech will end their monopoly should be careful about what they're wishing for.
"The business of Google is not a search engine, the business of Google is knowing as much about you as they can know." ~ Nellie Bowles
What a brilliant opinion that guy had: "Uh I can't be a monopoly actually, you're just haters because I'm succesful and occupy the whole market because of my succes. So, you're actually just attacking my succes. Also, I don't serve ALL the ads, just an absolute majority by a long shot, so def not a monopoly."
Look at his Zoom Background, its a Breadline from communist era Russia. He's saying in the most hamfisted way ever "If this happens, it will be as bad as communism!!"
oh wow an angel investor thinks that anti trust is a bad thing. womp womp
Hopefully Disney is NEXT!! Disney is definitely a monopoly and needs to be broken up!!
No need, Disney is already in the process of completely destroying itself
How is Disney a monopoly? Also you do realize being a monopoly is legal in the US, the FTC is alleging unlawful abuse of the monopoly position, not "oh hey you did to well that's not fair to the people who suck". I loath Disney for so many reasons don't get me wrong. Walt was a fan of the no no German leader during the second great war. He is who the character "Mr House" from Fallout New Vagus is based on for a good reason, dude thought he was deserving to rule over people like a ceo king. Then you have the company's Song of the South movie and similar content. Abuse of animators and unfair business tactics early on. Then today you have all kinds of bad behavior including trying to use a ToS in Disney+ to get out of a wrongful death lawsuit for feeding a woman an allergen at a restaurant which specifically caters to people with allergies. You've got abuse of the actors today, and if you're conservative you might hate them for being "woke" or whatever. In reality Disney couldn't care less, they just wanna make money and in doing so went a little to far pretending to care to the point of alienating generations of customers.
I won't argue "Disney doesn't suck", but I don't see how it's a monopoly. It's a major global studio for sure but it still competes with Universal Studios, MGM (Huh they got bought by Amazon???), and a number of other old large names. I'm sure Disney is bigger but do they really represent a majority to the point of being a monopoly? That'd have to be at least 80-90% right? I just never heard anyone make this argument, I'm not saying you're wrong I just don't see it.
@@GeorgeWashingtonLaserMusket They more or less OWN the film industry at this point.
@@GeorgeWashingtonLaserMusket Disney has a habit of buying out other major studios.
Google hasn't been useful in almost 10 years. It's bloated and absolutely annoying. I run it on nothing. Changed my pixel to GrapheneOS. The only thing they do well is their phone camera.
About time these companies get broken up. Next amazon and apple.
I don't even use google search anymore except on my phone for stupid stuff. The search engine has become irrelevant over the last two years.
I recommend Ecosia and Duckduckgo (can even use google when necessary)
12:50 Dude has a name that's incredibly fun to say. "Spensa wooba walla".
Parents need to be punished and made example of
18:45 "Others still think that America should avoid turning into the EU regulating innovation into oblivion"
Which innovation? Google search engine keeps getting worse, so many ads and garbage results that appear there only because of SEO. Lack of competition allows them to optimize their revenue sacrificing quality and face no consequences. Lack of regulation has been proven to not work for creating innovation
Historically, these end up costing the consumer. Funny how free products are a monopoly. Yet live nation/ticket master are ignored, charging customers aburd fees and controlling the secondary/scalping market.
As a small business owner I can for sure say Google rips us off in their ad prices but they're the only bottom funnel advertiser in town so we have no choice but to pay them what they charge
Something smells fishy.
Wait, I’ll just Google it! 😂
Nailed it!
Maybe we just fry it if ut smells fishy...😅
*Bing it
*Edge it
Google: "Something smells fishy? I can sell you something for that!" 🤑
The largest barrier to competition is almost always barriers to entry. That's what exclusive access agreements are about. It's the same in every industry.
If it's in every industry, what do you think our next move should be? If we're breaking up Google.... 🤔
@@williamyoung9401 Let's start with the big ones.
@@williamyoung9401 Let's start with the big ones.
That is a falsehood... just because Google altered their prices and "no one noticed", its more like there was NO PLACE to Complain or File a Complaint or Challenge made available AND When there was an option to draw attention to this, Google didn't act upon it, they just 'shined on' the consumer, because GOOGLE is the "BEST a.k.a. only place" to do significant advertising.
Both UA-cam and Android and ChromeOS would be MASSIVELY better without being tied exclusively to Google...
Unless they were going to be further regulations in place, forcing companies to "break up" is basically just slapping them on the wrist. They split into smaller companies who then all still obey and soon sell out to the parent company, so it becomes all the same company again under different names, like AT&T has done in the past.
Only if it is done improperly
Indian CEO vs Indian judge, the ultimate battle
The conclusion will always be 💩
yes @@foetusdeletus6313
Racist much?
@@foetusdeletus6313indians love that 😋
Be evil - Google
Most of the tech companies are evil rn. Beware!
They only dominate because of the monopoly. In reality their service has become garbage, especially with their implementing the crap AI.
I agree. Although, focusing on whether Google is a monopoly gives the company an excuse to avoid DOJ action. Antitrust laws don’t declare monopolies illegal; rather, they focus on preventing anti-competitive behavior that harms consumers, taxpayers, and workers. The real issue is practices like predatory pricing or exclusive contracts that stifle competition.
in some ways, saying that Google has a monopoly on search is like saying the US government has a monopoly on the judicial system
The NFL holds a complete monopoly on the game of football. Unlike Google, which does have competitors, the NFL does not. Because of that, the NFL can charge millions of dollars for a 15 second ad during the Superbowl.
Where's the outcry?
Google does have competitors. One can still use Meta crawler, or Yahoo. There are options. People have choices. It's the average user who gave Google that give market share. It's just better at finding things than the other sites.
But let's talk about the NFL's stranglehold on the sport of football. It is a business. It is for profit. But no one seems to be mad at them for having a monopoly that Google or Bill Gates could only dream of.
Not to mention golf, concerts, the olympics, etc.
the ad cost is based on people attending and exposure on networks and social media
I think it's telling that the guy defending google saying "They've done orders of magnitude more good!" didn't name anything they did.
we supposed to just believe him 🤣🤣🤣
Yah buddy just keep forgetting you can navigate with GPS whenever you please, and they sent a car on every street for you to do it. And you probably do it at least once a week probably more. If you say you use apple you prove they don't have a monopoly and you are also forgetting apple copied them. You get insane benefits from their company l, you are sitting in bed right now enjoying free entertainment instead of paying 80/mo for satellite tv who force you to watch 6 full length 1 minute unskippables even tho u paid a subscription fee. You are litterly watching entertainment for free and saying you can't even say one good thing they've done? You're nuts.
@@JasonDeville-fi4dhPeople choose to hate Google because the Alex Joneses of the world has told them that big brother is watching and they are terrified. But yet they continue to sheep for Apple.
@@JasonDeville-fi4dh I don't use Apple and I only use maps to figure out how to get somewhere new or really far away, if not google someone else woulda made a different Maps app.
Google didn't make YT either, by the way, and there's others who try to compete with it. YT has the benefit of being here first and everyone is already on it. Same 'defaults' problem as before, and similarly "if not Google someone else would have".
The 'good they've done' that you list is 'not let someone else take over', basically. That's kinda just maintaining monopoly. If Maps and YT shut down today forever, something new would take their places, and hell they might even be better.
You have named two things, and one of them wasn't even Google's doing really. Ain't gonna reply to this again tho, spent too much energy on this comment already..
Lmao, 'leave the multibillion dollar corporation alone...'
Honestly, as much as i respect google and use their services a lot, i think these lawsuits are fully justified and finally bring some competition into the space!
Why do you "respect" this huge company? It's not a person. Do you think, ever?
@@steven401ytxI respect their ability to make decent products and achieve this market success in the first place (as well as establishing search engines and android smartphones as commonplace products that we all use basically daily)
@@steven401ytx lmao why do you need to be a person to be respected. I respect NASA. Do you think, like, ever?
@@steven401ytx actually, funny enough, companies are actually persons, just not physical ones :P
@@_timelikeHe’s never tried it.
Another fabulous episode. My comment... 'about time'.
One of the classiest and most thought-provoking channels on the internet!
Thanks Dagogo.
I don’t prefer Google, but I’m forced to use it to find stuff effectively.
Google in the 90s: "Dont be evil"
Google in the 20s:
Step 1: be a rich financial entity
Step 2: own 20% in google
Step 3: pay the government to sue & split google "because of monopoly"
Step 4: obtain a brand new tech company
Step 5: profit
Remember, the same bankers that own google, pay prosecutors to destroy it
you actually would need a country and state funded if you want to compete with the big tech companies. not to mention some serious pull in Silicon Valley.
maybe someone like Elon Musk could, that already should tell you that it's not something you just do. lol
@@cyphaborg6598i think you completely misunderstood the point.... re-read OP's comment. They arent saying anything about competing with Big Tech companies.
When Billions are at play, you have to turn each word that has been spoken.
There are RATS between the sheets that enjoy your heat.
At the very least, split google ads from google chrome, or prevent them changing chrome to not support good ad-blockers.
Disable javascript, disable cookies, use a privacy browser, if you don't like your ads being less pointless. Gotta pay for this stuff somehow. You think the money fairy just stuffs them with money? Get real.
Or just use Firefox.
@@firestarter1888 I hate the advertising-focused internet. If you rely on obtrusive dong-pill pop-ups to stay afloat then you deserve to go under. Especially when it’s a website with 20MB of actual content topped up with over 200MB of ads. If you have content I think is worth paying 10c or a dollar to view, then I’ll give you that, it’s more than you’d get from ten minutes of me browsing your site with ads anyhow. Good ad-blockers like U-Block Origin should become as commonplace as possible, if not have web-browsers with built in content blocking like Brave, that way we will drift away from the hellish landscape the internet has become. Doesn’t really matter what it turns into, be it decentralised hosting, optional crypto microdonations, or just stripped-down lightweight websites with exceptionally cheap hosting requirements. Anything is better than what we have now.
Also LibreWolf is better than Firefox.
I'm willing to accept some inconvenience in my life if it means Google gets broken up.
The fact that Google pays Mozilla to keep itself afloat and make people think that they are not monopolizing the search space is insane.
The quality of the Google search results have dropped noticeably. It's a disgrace.
These big companies make life worse for us all. Last thing I want all day is to be advertised to and my tech monopolised by adverts. It sickens me. I will block them as much as I can.
Car Insurance, road tax and BBC licence are a shyte monopoly too.
why car insurance, it can be brought from any insurance company right?
"regulating innovation into oblivion"....what innovation is Google pursuing, currently, or have done, recently?
deepmind
@@theforsakeen177hardly
I worked on that.
@@life_of_riley88 they released AlphaProteo recently, seems innovative enough to me
Dagogo is really fucking biased in this video. He says that Eu regulated innovation into oblivion" Since WHEN?! Cause they wouldn't let tech bros go batshit, balls to the walls and exploit everyone and destroy everything in their path like they did in the US?
Google search is so bad now, I have to add "reddit" to all my questions.
Is that a symptom of Google search or modern day parasites gaming the system to display bullshit? Of course the answer is both, and yes you could argue Google wins either way.
Use perplexity
Companies when a monopoly company is destroyed: happy sounds
Same company when they become one: awkward side eye
I really dislike Google for their inappropriate ads. I'm a guy and I'm always getting ads for some strange game with shameful art.
Pumping UA-cam full of ads, then blocking users from seeing content (which Google never made ... let's not forget UA-cam exists because of the content its users create) if they don't allow ads or pay an increasing subscription fee is one of the practices why I think Google deserves this and I hope more companies will get scrutinized this way.
Then switch to Rumble instead of this UA-cam.
@@wazzup233 : Also subscription for an ad-free experience.
About damn time. AT&T was a monoploy and stiffled all inovation. Once they were broken up a lot of the telecommunications technology we use now was allowed to have a chance at widespread implementation.
If nothing else, it’s just an unethical company.
One that you contribute to the bottom line
"don't be evil" remember how quickly they back-paddled on that one? they already knew they couldn't adhere to it almost immediately
When the first 2 pages of a Google search is “Sponsored” links