[user5994461]

Let's take TV as a comparison. On TV the ads have guidelines on what they can do and show, set by the tv channel and the broader regulation.

On the internet, there isn't anything, it's the wild west. It can't hurt to get some minimal standards, doesn't matter where it comes from as long as it's enforced.

[colanderman]

> set by the tv channel and the broader regulation.

Which is key. Television ad regulations aren't set – and enforced – by the dominant advertisement broker.

[user5994461]

The channel can refuse to play any ad for any reason. They standards are partially set by the channel.

[colanderman]

...who is not the broker.

[user5994461]

Let's get back in times when there was TV but there was no regulation yet. A channel surely had to be the broker and set the standards.

Internet is young. There will be some regulations and standards, eventually.

[colanderman]

Online advertising has existed for over 25 years. [1] Online ad brokers (i.e., competitors with Google) have existed for nearly 20 years. It is incredibly disingenuous of you to pretend as if Google is in any way "forced" to play both gatekeeper and ad broker, like no-one else is trying to compete in that space. Developing Chrome was a deliberate choice by Google to position themselves to own the means by which users consume ads, search (ads), and video (ads).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_advertising#Display_ads

[dragonwriter]

Legally, it matters a lot whether it's the government enforcing rules which restrain trade or a private coalition including the major incumbent players in the industry being restrained.