But while the harms to publishers and advertisers have been outlined at length, there’s been less talk about the seemingly major consequences for consumers perhaps harmed by the alleged monopoly. Those harms include higher costs of goods, less privacy, and increasingly lower-quality ads that frequently bombard their screens with products nobody wants.

By overcharging by as much as 5 or 10 percent for online ads, Google allegedly placed a “Google tax” on the price of “everyday goods we buy,” Tech Oversight’s Sacha Haworth explained during a press briefing Thursday, where experts closely monitoring the trial shared insights.

“When it comes to lowering costs on families,” Haworth said, “Google has overcharged advertisers and publishers by nearly $2 billion. That’s just over the last four years. That has inflated the price of ads, it’s increased the cost of doing business, and, of course, these costs get passed down to us when we buy things online.”

But while it’s unclear if destroying Google’s alleged monopoly would pass on any savings to consumers, Elise Phillips, policy counsel focused on competition and privacy for Public Knowledge, outlined other benefits in the event of a DOJ win.

She suggested that Google’s conduct has diminished innovation, which has “negatively” affected “the quality diversity and even relevancy of the advertisements that consumers tend to see.”

Were Google’s ad tech to be broken up and behavioral remedies sought, more competition might mean that consumers have more control over how their personal data is used in targeted advertising, Phillips suggested, and ultimately, lead to a future where everyone gets fed higher-quality ads.

That could happen if, instead of Google’s ad model dominating the Internet, less invasive ad targeting models could become more widely adopted, experts suggested. That could enhance privacy and make online ads less terrible after The New York Times declared a “junk ad epidemic” last year.

The thinking goes that if small businesses and publishers benefited from potentially reduced costs, increased revenues, and more options, consumers might start seeing a wider, higher-quality range of ads online, experts suggested.

Better ad models “are already out there,” Open Markets Institute policy analyst Karina Montoya said, such as “conceptual advertising” that uses signals that, unlike Google’s targeting, don’t rely on “gigantic, massive data sets that collect every single thing that we do in all of our devices and that don’t ask for our consent.”

  • atrielienz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Or, hear me out government, you could do this and enact proper privacy laws. Maybe. Just. You know. Think on it.

  • LunchMoneyThief@links.hackliberty.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    2 months ago

    Those harms include higher costs of goods, less privacy, and increasingly lower-quality ads that frequently bombard their screens with products nobody wants.

    Pretending that somehow, if only the ads were “moar relevant!”, that they would be any less of an assault.

    I’ll just continue blocking as I always do.

    Google’s antitrust drama is just a popcorn side show to me.

    • EherNicht@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      This reminds me of Windows Telemetry claiming it is necessary to improve the product. Well, that worked out…

    • schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      if only the ads were “moar relevant!”

      But that’s been the refrain for so long I’m not sure anyone is going to be able to change it.

      It’s been about a decade of me, at least, hearing that the only problem is they’re just not relevant enough, and if we just target them better/make them more personalized/whatever that’d solve all the issues everyone has with it.

      Problem is, of course, that the only way to even attempt that is to double-down on spying, data theft, and invading every scrap of privacy via any means possible which, uh, actually is the problem so this “solution” can’t and couldn’t ever work.

      • hamsterkill@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        It’s been about a decade of me, at least, hearing that the only problem is they’re just not relevant enough, and if we just target them better/make them more personalized/whatever that’d solve all the issues everyone has with it.

        They’re not referring to the issues you and I have with. They’re referring to the issues their ad customers have with it. More relevant ads mean ads can be more effective and valuable for advertisers – not less annoying for viewers.

        • schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Different sides, same coin.

          You can’t improve ad targeting without doing shit that even normal people will be creeped out by, and if you’re creeping people out they’re not going to buy your shit.

          They’ve really pushed it as far as they can probably reasonably go without crossing that line too badly, and even then we’ve already crossed into normal people coming up with concerns that like thinking they’re having their phone listen to their conversations to show them ads.

          They’re (probably) not, but it’s also perfectly believable given what’s been done so far to “make the ads more relevant”.

          This is really a dead-end for everyone, short of someone coming up with a way to stuff ads into your dreams.

    • MajorHavoc
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Google’s antitrust drama is just a popcorn side show to me.

      A sideshow we’re both paying for, though. Ugh.

      But you’ve got the right track. I can’t personally fix their monopoly, but I can block their bullshit from teaching my devices.

  • grudan
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    2 months ago

    I doubt prices go down, but they may go up slower and it’s a win for small business.

    • WarlordSdocy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yep it’ll be the classic thing of the company saves money, doesn’t pass it on to the consumers, and now reports higher profits to make it’s stock price go up.

  • chiisana@lemmy.chiisana.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 months ago

    Reducing ad spend on one platform, albeit often the elephant in the room for most companies’ online marketing department, isn’t going to reduce prices at the till. Companies will either reallocate the ad spend elsewhere, there by spamming more ads in front of everyone, or pocket the difference to pad their profit margin.

  • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Elon musk comes out of the billionaires convention and someone asks “what do we have?” And he replies “A monopoly, if you can keep it!”

  • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    And yet somehow I trust Google acting in its own self-interest to benefit Americans more than the government breaking up Google with the intent of benefiting Americans. American companies dominate the internet (outside of China), this is to America’s great advantage, and I don’t think the government should risk losing that advantage.