Google's anti-sideloading stance is scummy for a lot of reasons, but this in particular is a bad example.
Expecting that the rich will do the right thing out of their good hearts is not just naive but actively damaging for society.
You have a company, it is worth below X dollars? You do what you want. Above X dollars, now you get government minder for every decision.
All of the "buying to shutdown competitors"- not possible - you don't have enough cash! Well I mean, it would be possible, but it would also carry huge risk. (As you don't have infinite cash reserves)
Keep your companies small and agile, stay focused on your primary initiative, distribute profits to your employees, build infrastructure, contribute back --- I like this.
You need both. Even restaurants are heavily regulated to avoid making people sick. To let restaurants make people sick until they go out of business seems a quick way to decimate your own population.
And yes, that everything is consolidated in a few monopolies makes everything bad and expensive. So, that seems a great thing to solve too.
We need some of the 2nd. You can't micromanage as a legislator unless that's your entire domain, and I don't think anyone on congress right now is laser focused on software nor even big tech (where we 100% should have a committee by now). But at the very least some basic consumer protections would be nice.
Just to show how nakedly corrupt it is; we recently had a good law about subscription cancellations being easier. And I believe by now that's already repealed as it goes through predictable litigation. It's such a nakedly anti-consumer move, but we're so downtrodden that it barely registered as a blip.
It's unreal to me that you can search for a specific doctor's name in a specific town and end up seeing a sponsored result that uses the doctor's name in the ad's title but it's not the real office, instead it's someone else entirely.
i only play a laywer on HN but seems categorically different than the safe harbor dmca which protects youtube etc since google has full control?
same for the amazon case. amazon for fraud and/or tm infringement.
the buyer of the ads as well in both cases but of course those are smaller pockets to empty.
it needs to be done legally but i will say that ads can benefit startups and small companies wrt building awareness against brands which already have it - so i dont think 'ads are the scourge of the earth' but of course rule of law needs to apply.
There may be trademark infringement when you use another company's trademarks. There are some exceptions, for example copy like 'Compatible with $X' or 'Learn why users are switching from $X to <you>' are generally fine. The line has been drawn over decades of court battles and case law.
At work, we've dealt with a few examples that go as far as falsely impersonating our brand.
Recently, we've started getting 'explanations' from these (usually fly-by-night operators) that it was 'unintended' and the result of AI targeting and optimization. Yeah, right.
Why do I feel like that’s reasonable regulation to enact, making obvious tactics for tricking my mom into buying the wrong pizza place a crime?
That a big part of why discovery on the google/App store is just a plutocracy at this point. Mobile is free (as in beer) but a huge money sink advertising the game.