Hacker News Reader

Comment by pwthornton | Hacker News Reader

The allegations here are astonishing. If true, how is this possibly allowed to continue on like this? This is some real mob shit.

View on HN

I don't know if the allegations in this antitrust are true or not. However, about a decade ago I wrote a paper (https://www.cis.upenn.edu/~sga001/papers/vex-sigcomm13.pdf) discussing all the ways in which ad exchanges could misbehave without such actions being detectable and some technical mechanisms to prevent violations. I recall some colleagues telling me that surely ad exchanges would never misbehave because deviations from honest behavior would affect companies' reputations, and ethical people within these companies would whistle-blow immediately.

I'm really curious to see where the government acquired their evidence (and what solid evidence do they have), and whether it ends up holding up in court.

> deviations from honest behavior would affect companies' reputations, and ethical people within these companies would whistle-blow immediately.

Ahh the poor naivete of scholars...

Because of millions of people on HN and elsewhere who think that as long as you can get away with it, anything you do to make yourself or your shareholders more money is just fine.

That maybe true but in my opinion is a lesser evil compared to the corruption of government officials who are complicit in allowing this to happen. What is the point of government agencies if all they do is bow to those with the most money?

Implied by your question is the suggestion that the solution is just to abolish government agencies entirely, thus leaving people with no recourse against massive megacorporations, as opposed to trying to fix the problem in some meaningful way.

It's certainly true that there are problems with the current implementation of the mechanics of our government, but the idea that throwing them out entirely would leave us with something better just doesn't pass the sniff test.

> What is the point of government agencies if all they do is bow to those with the most money?

To legitimize the transfer of wealth upward, and protect the system. "Sure didn't we all vote for Trump/Biden". "If you're not voting you can't complain". Etc.

From housing to banking to the environment to food and drugs; from healthcare to the military, there is no shortage of examples of revolving doors, veneers, and gaslighting to choose from.

The fact that Obama promoted GS people to positions all over his cabinet after the '08 bailouts should have clued in anyone with more than 8 brain cells. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/12/henhouse-meet-f...

Ad exchanges are not a regulated activity like stock exchange is. That means there is no SEC equivalent for Google's ad market activity.

FTC has some oversight authority, no?

Technically, yes, but the FTC is not geared to enforce financial market rules. Searching FTC rulings on ad exchanges, I found one example of a settlement in a COPPA case.

How is this allowed to continue? Parasitic capitalism. The regulatory bodies have been in a captured state for a very long time in the U.S.

This is why 'regulatory bodies' are fundamentally a scam.

Tort law remains the worst way to prevent these kind of abuses, except for all the others that have been tried. But the same scam artists (lobbyists, politicians) who convince the public that what we need is just a little more regulation also engage in "tort reform" and it's no coincidence that means removing private causes of action.

"Tort reform" people are also "less regulation" people in every case I can think of. What they usually claim they're for is "better enforcement" while also defunding and reducing the scope and powers of regulatory agencies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com