[TeMPOraL]

It's free market, isn't it? Take it or leave it - nobody forces you to use Google ad network. ;). /s

At this point I'm convinced that nothing but regulation can make those big companies - on which our digital lives are more and more dependent - to provide even a modicum of customer support. Right now they don't care, because they simply don't have to - a HN headline every other week doesn't create measurable losses, because users don't have comparable alternatives (and the Internet, paradoxically, has very short memory). On the other hand, having customer support costs real money...

EDIT: Added a sarcasm tag next to the winkie, just in case someone mistakes my comment for a defense of Google.

[eykanal]

Because the theoretical "free market" is nothing like what actually happens in practice. The Economist had a great writeup on this a few days ago [1], but the short of it is that Google is the definitive market leader, with almost no one in second place. Moving to a different network is simply accepting that your ads will perform worse.

Additionally, responding to outright fraud by Google with the statement "move elsewhere" is a pretty incredible admission of the power they have. They can abuse their near-monopoly of the market with almost no fear of reprisal.

[1]: http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2017/01/ec...

---

EDIT: Just saw your below comment that you were trying to be sarcastic. Ah well, it was apparently lost on me.

[TeMPOraL]

Indeed, and that is precisely my point.

And this applies not just to Google - but also to Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and probably few others, as proven by the amount of such stories popping up on HN in the past few years.

[voidlogic]

>They can abuse their near-monopoly of the market with almost no fear of reprisal.

What checkbox isn't Google checking to be hit by anti-trust action for its ad networks?

[lovich]

The government doesn't seem to prosecute those cases anymore. Internet ISP's with their geographically bound actual physical monopolies would be an even stronger case but you don't hear anything from the feds about prosecuting those companies either

[cpayne]

I never really understand why comments like this get downvoted.

There seems to be love for the free market. That is until the free market goes against what I want. Then the free market sucks!

What if FARK was another type of business. Say it is the corner 7-11[1]. They have been there for 18 years, and their major source of customers was the big factory next door.

Factory decides to either move / redesign / whatever, where the customers are no longer available.

The store makes a big noise - would anyone care?

[1] in this example, I mean any sort of "corner store". 20 years ago we'd call them milk bars, but now I'm showing my age...

[trprog]

>That is until the free market goes against what I want. Then the free market sucks!

I'm not sure anyone is saying that the free market sucks. People are saying that there is no free market in some sectors and that, in the absence of a reasonably efficient free market, the least worst alternative is regulation.

[ue_]

I think it sucks, but that's because I'm a Communist.

[trprog]

heh, fair point. Command economy advocates aside nobody is saying the free market sucks :)

[aeze]

What people really want is a competitive market.

[TeMPOraL]

What people want is in conflict.

What entrepreneurs want is to play the game and win big. What consumers want is for every entrepreneur to play the game, but for no one to win big. So yes, consumers want competition - entrepreneurs not so much.

This whole thing is actually funny to look from the outside - big payoffs are essentially a carrot dangled in front of people so that they start companies and get into competition with each other, which drives innovation and lowers prices. But it's meant to be a lie - you can't deliver on the promise too much, you can't have one player actually win, because this destroys competition, and with it it destroys the benefits the whole process brings to the society.

[TeMPOraL]

You raise a good point, but I start to have a feeling people read my comment as a defense of Google and free markets. It's not. The opening sentence was meant sarcastically.

[twoquestions]

These days, you can never tell for sure.

Poe's Law strikes again!

[Altay-]

In a free market, if a company breaks its Terms of Service with me I have the legal right to walk up and shoot every Employee and Shareholder of that company (No limited liability in a free market -- that's a government decree.)