Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

EU Approves Google-DoubleClick Merger

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the think-before-you-click dept.

Google 78

A number of readers sent word that EU regulators have cleared the Google-DoubleClick deal. "The commission said Google and DoubleClick 'were not exerting major competitive constraints on each other's activities and could, therefore, not be considered as competitors,' and even if DoubleClick could become an effective competitor in online intermediation services, 'it is likely that other competitors would continue to exert sufficient competitive pressure after the merger.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Did I miss something? (0)

Sorthum (123064) | more than 6 years ago | (#22720854)

I wonder how much that trick cost Google?

Apparently politicians over there are for sale as well. How could this NOT be anti-competitive?

Re:Did I miss something? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22720906)

I wonder how much that trick cost Google?

Apparently politicians over there are for sale as well. How could this NOT be anti-competitive?
Probably quite a bit with the recent decline in the value of the dollar. I'm pretty sure that European politicians are only bribeable in Euros.

Re:Did I miss something? (4, Insightful)

scubamage (727538) | more than 6 years ago | (#22720974)

Nothing. Google's primary business is still being a search engine. Doubleclick is an advertising framework and analytics (hence google wanting to acquire it). Search engine != advertising framework. Therefore they don't compete. Funny how things work just like they're supposed to sometimes.

Re:Did I miss something? (0, Flamebait)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721014)

Google doesn't make money off search, they make money off ads. They make pretty much ALL their money off ads. Your statement is nonsense, just like this ruling.

Re:Did I miss something? (3, Insightful)

scubamage (727538) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721080)

Mmmm, your tears sustain me. Cry more, please, cry more. So sweet and salty. You also miss the fact that while google may make its revenue off of ads, it still is not considered an advertising framework and analytics package. Google analytics is nothing compared to doubleclick, which is their primary reason for the acquisition. As mentioned elsewhere in this story's discussion, the analytics are whats important here. Every website makes money off of advertising, google does it with searching. Doubleclick, however, makes their money off of the analytics it offers along with an advertising framework. They are two different things. If you want to say they're the same thing, you may want to ditch the sour grapes and get your head checked.

Re:Did I miss something? (1)

voxelz (954860) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721350)

I believe the main distinction is that Google and DoubleClick are competing in different areas of online advertising. Google deals primarily with textual advertisements, while DoubleClick sells mostly graphical advertisements.

Re:Did I miss something? (1)

Gutboy (587531) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721854)

Every website makes money off of advertising

consumerreports.com

Re:Did I miss something? (2, Interesting)

Fozzyuw (950608) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721438)

Google doesn't make money off search, they make money off ads. They make pretty much ALL their money off ads.

Your comment is overrated. Popular World of Warcraft database sites Thottbot.com and Wowhead.com make their money of ads. I imagine Slashdot makes a good deal of money off ads as well. So, does that mean they're competing with Google?

Re:Did I miss something? (1)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721586)

It means they're vendors reselling what Google is selling, you twit. Do you think the guy selling Windows out of his shop competes with Microsoft?

Re:Did I miss something? (1, Insightful)

scubamage (727538) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721652)

If Microsoft had a factory store that sold copies of windows, yes.

Re:Did I miss something? (0)

Fozzyuw (950608) | more than 6 years ago | (#22722102)

It means they're vendors reselling what Google is selling

Except, those sites I listed are not reselling Google AdWords (at least, not that I can see, without pouring over their source code) so I guess that means there's competition out there in the market place and the EU probably figured that out in their ruling, no?

Do you think the guy selling Windows out of his shop competes with Microsoft?

Anyone who's worked for a manufacturer knows this happens. Granted, in the past this wasn't as popular as today, though "Outlet stores" where not uncommon, they where more limited by region. But with the advent of the Internet, a lot of manufacturers are going direct to customers via their websites, even at the displeasure and anger of their vendors. It's such a big movement that there are companies that have popped up for this very reason, such as Reshare [reshare.com] , who sell a "cross-channel conflict" solution product to manufacturers.

you twit

Aww, did I hurt your feelings? If you haven't figured it out, name calling is often used by those who have a poor argument in attempts to discredit those with a strong argument by baseless personnel attacks because they have no other means of discrediting their rival. Generally, it's a sign that one don't know what they're talking about. I recommend, refraining from doing so in the future and you're argument will look much more intelligent. Of course, it wouldn't be as fun, but thanks for calling me a twit, I got a good chuckle out of it.

Cheers!

Re:Did I miss something? (1)

omegacentrix (473330) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721774)

No... Google's primary service is search. Google's primary business is advertising. Make no mistake, Google, as it stands today, is an advertising company with an intense technical focus working to expand into other services and businesses (e.g. office suites, online payment).

Re:Did I miss something? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22722914)

Monopolies can be vertical, as well as horizontal. Ford used to be an example of that.

Re:Did I miss something? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22723588)

*** Nothing. Google's primary business is still being a search engine ***

Bullshit. They don't make any money off of searches. They make their money from ads served while searching. They are directly linked.

I wonder how much they slipped to the EU marxists.

Re:Did I miss something? (1)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 6 years ago | (#22725022)

Google is not and has never been a monopoly. Microsoft is a monopoly and has been ruled a monopoly by the courts. This puts a burden on Microsoft to play by special rules. ALL monopolies must play by special rules.

Google and Doubleclick were not competitors of one another and that's what the EU ruled. Apparently most don't understand what Doubleclick does/did to make money. Yes, Google makes money on advertisement and they make money on their search service, only you don't see it. They license their search tools/services to other entities.

Even if Google and Doubleclick were competitors (which the ruling specifically stated they were not), they would not put such a burden on competitors as to destroy their competitiveness (which is also essentially what the ruling stated).

I see a lot of Microsoft in these posts. Some don't seem to be able to stand the fact that Microsoft is a convicted monopolist and they don't understand what it means and why it came about. Microsoft has been great at obfuscating the issues they were/are involved in, even today. Again, you can't expect companies that are not monopolists, that were not ruled a monopoly, to play by exactly the same rules. Otherwise there'd be no rules imparted upon the monopoly. Monopolies can be beneficial to society but they almost never are. So, we see a lot of anti-monopoly company rhetoric and those that don't seem to like that are attacking a company that is not, and has never been ruled a monopoly.

Microsoft can't compete except by using it's monopolistic practices and when the Bush administration is gone you can expect a change and greater oversight and maybe even a spectacular battle to come. Other non-monopolies trying to compete that grow in other markets yet still wishing for a level playing field in those markets held by the monopolist, and gain enough power to fight back with their lobbying dollars. As Microsoft implodes, which it will do, has been doing, and will continue to do, it will have less money to bribe and manipulate.

Right now you should understand that you pay more for an inferior product that essentially has become a rehash of old but with a twisted violation on your privacy. They have made you and everyone else pay for and use a product that is so wrong in so many ways. You should be able to see this easily: Look at Vista and how they are going to dismantle XP in favor of Vista when it is clear that the majority feel Vista is inferior and has other factors such as privacy violations, spyware, Digital Restrictions Management, lock in technologies, etc.

You may think there is nothing wrong, but you won't face the fact that if a car company did this you'd be up in arms. Imagine you could no longer buy the car you wanted, you had to buy the car they put out and that you would no longer receive support (gas, maintenance, upgrades, parts) because the car company having the monopoly dictated it. You should be setting the stage as to what and how long that support should exist, not the car company and especially, not the ONLY car company. What would you do if they threatened to sue you because you fixed it yourself or you decided to look for another car company to do business with? You'd be livid. Understand this. Microsoft is telling you what you can do and how you can do it instead of them adjusting to the needs you have. Not only that, they are spying on you to ensure you do it their way and they report back when they think you are breaking their rules. Imagine if the same car company said you couldn't sell your car to someone else? Imagine if they said you couldn't use other parts from another company other than those they suggest. What if they took control of your car and refused to start because they sensed you had turned off the mechanism that allowed them to monitor your car? Again, you'd be livid.

So, this Google/Doubleclick dispute that you have here is literally one where a convicted monopolist has been doing that for a long time and wants to control other markets to ensure that they have the monetary power to continue to lobby in order to obfuscate the fact that they are manipulating things they shouldn't, especially since they are a monopoly. If they have to enter into special secret deals with our government they they'll do so. This isn't say they have but the environment of the goverment spying on the average american is ripe for deals such as this. We have bigger fish to fry other than to complain that the EU has cleared Google yet it continues to haunt Microsoft. Obviously a government agency that is so strict, yet allows this to go forward, must indicate that they are willing to scrutinize and when they do they do a good job and yet in all their scrutiny they passed this one--because there's nothing wrong with it--it is just you following Microsoft propaganda.

Re:Did I miss something? (1)

Danny Rathjens (8471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22728478)

Google's primary business is still being a search engine.

"For the 2006 fiscal year, the company reported US$10.492 billion in total advertising revenues and only US$112 million in licensing and other revenues."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google#Advertising [wikipedia.org]
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312507044494/d10k.htm [sec.gov]

I for one (-1, Troll)

jtev (133871) | more than 6 years ago | (#22720890)

Welcome our new advertising overlords! Or something like that.

ISR (3, Funny)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721148)

Welcome our new advertising overlords! Or something like that.

In capitalist Europe, Google-Doubleclick approves EU!

The company that does everything (1, Funny)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721226)

Do no evil + Do evil = Do everything

Globalization (0)

TitusC3v5 (608284) | more than 6 years ago | (#22720896)

Considering that Google is based in the USA, is there any reason why they would even need the EU's approval for something like this? Perhaps the article could clear that up. I'll go check that righ--oh, wait....

Re:Globalization (5, Insightful)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 6 years ago | (#22720926)

Considering that Google is based in the USA, is there any reason why they would even need the EU's approval for something like this?
Point about the article being nonexistent notwithstanding, the answer is that they don't technically *need* the EU's approval, except that they would probably like to actually do business IN the EU

Re:Globalization (2, Informative)

Dr. Eggman (932300) | more than 6 years ago | (#22720988)

It exists from the firehose submission [www.cbc.ca] . Pilot error, it seems.

Re:Globalization (1)

Ngarrang (1023425) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721056)

Considering that Google is based in the USA, is there any reason why they would even need the EU's approval for something like this?
Point about the article being nonexistent notwithstanding, the answer is that they don't technically *need* the EU's approval, except that they would probably like to actually do business IN the EU
But, Google never has to step physically into Europe for anything. It is just data across some tubes. If the EU Commission had said no, could they really stop the merger? European companies would be told, "Don't buy from Google-Click or else"? As if all internet servers for European companies are even hosted in Europe?

Re:Globalization (3, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721180)

But, Google never has to step physically into Europe for anything. It is just data across some tubes.
Google has local offices across the world.
Or do you really think they coordinate advertising in England from California?

If the EU Commission had said no, could they really stop the merger? European companies would be told, "Don't buy from Google-Click or else"? As if all internet servers for European companies are even hosted in Europe?
If [company] went ahead with a non-EU regulator approved merger, I imagine the regulators would start fining [company] for whatever reason they turned down the merger.

Re:Globalization (1)

TitusC3v5 (608284) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724778)

We see how well that's worked with Microsoft...

Re:Globalization (2, Insightful)

nbert (785663) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721424)

In addition (to what TubeSteak already said) google is way too big and very present on the European market. To give a counter-example: Facebook used to be quite safe from EU regulations, because even though they had many registered users in the EU they were operating solely from the US. And since their service is "for free" there was no money trail to go for. However, this changed recently: They now have venues in the UK and Germany (and Spain IIRC).

A company has to obey the laws in the countries they do business in. Even if the laws are stupid (China, anyone?), but that's a different story...

Re:Globalization (3, Interesting)

oliderid (710055) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721614)

Google is currently building a big Data Center here in Belgium($340 million).

for more info
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2007/Apr/27/google_data_center_project_in_belgium.html [datacenterknowledge.com]

And it looks like it is just the beginning of their European investment.

Re:Globalization (3, Informative)

xaxa (988988) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721872)

Google already has a strong European presence, they have engineering offices in Dublin, London, Zürich, Trondheim, and loads more places [google.com] . Data centres aren't interesting -- only a few good jobs come out of them.

Re:Globalization (1)

daveime (1253762) | more than 6 years ago | (#22722298)

Well, they'll need somewhere to store all the cookies ;-)

Re:Globalization (1)

mr_death (106532) | more than 6 years ago | (#22722440)

The EU loves to meddle with US Companies, and impose their bizzare form of competition (to a USian) on foreigners. Recent victims include Boeing, Microsoft, and Honeywell.

The pace of this meddling is accellerating; it may be time for the US to engage in a little tit-for-tat to show the Eurocrats the error of their ways.

Re:Globalization (2, Informative)

nevali (942731) | more than 6 years ago | (#22722922)

Such a huge amount of uninformed claptrap in such a short post.

It's really simple: if companies don't want to be bound by EU laws and regulators, don't do business here. Seriously, you're all more than welcome to boycott the EU if you think that's a preferable option. Mind you, nobody listens when people complain about US companies doing business in China--which has, in real terms, far more black marks against it than the EU--so it's unlikely that US companies will boycott a massively lucrative market any time soon.

Plenty of European companies have fallen afoul of the regulators too, you know, and they somehow manage to do just fine, only generally they stop screwing the consumers (or, more directly, the rest of their respective industries) once they've had their knuckles rapped. Take Siemens for example, who got fined to hell and back and have enacted a new era of corporate governance. Or E.on, who announced a complete U-turn on their previous plans to hold on to their energy-generation monopolies when they realised the regulator might actually be serious.

Of course, it's not like the EU is the only place where regulators and anti-competition laws do their thing. The US used to, before Bush had his way; nowadays the SEC seems to be pretty impotent, the FCC is a laughing stock, the FTC never does anything besides the occasional muttering about spyware, and the DoJ just wants it all to go away so it can sit in the corner and rock slowly in the hope that it'll all get better on its own.

Re:Globalization (1)

mr_death (106532) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724032)

It's not regulation that is the problem, it is the extra-territorial jurisdiction asserted by the EU over US companies. For example, when Boeing acquired McDonnell Douglas, the EU required that Boeing scrap its already-signed exclusive contracts with US airlines (Delta, American.) These contracts were legal between two US companies, yet the EU meddled with them -- allegedly for competition reasons, but it was really done to give another bit of the apple to the EU's favorite subsidy child, Airbus.

If you think this is ok, let's look at some possible tit-for-tat responses from the US government. Say, the US thinks that Siemens prices are too low or they are bribing too many EU officials, and fines them 50% of sales worldwide. Or, the US declares that commercial aircraft companies that receive subsidies are anti-competitive, and attaches a special anti-subsidy landing fee on each Airbus aircraft worldwide.

So if you really want a trade war, let's go; if not, the EU should back off.

Re:Globalization (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 6 years ago | (#22727668)

Delta Air Lines, Inc. (NYSE: DAL) is a United States airline[1]. Delta operates an expansive domestic and international network, spanning North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, the Middle East and the Caribbean.
If you fly to Europe, you do business in Europe, your subjected to European regulations.

Its not a trade war, the EU just believes that companies should be regulated, something America clearly believes in too (or are you going to argue against minimum wage & for monopolies). Its just that the EU sets a bar that benefits its citizens ( customers) more than it benefits the owners of companies.

publishers (1)

ohzero (525786) | more than 6 years ago | (#22720912)

has anyone done any analysis on how the merger will impact current adsense publishers? Will they be able to take advantage of dc services?

haha (1)

scubamage (727538) | more than 6 years ago | (#22720930)

And my google stock has just gone up 20$, and I can only expect it'll keep going up. Thanks for Christmas in march EU :D

Re:haha (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 6 years ago | (#22722248)

At last check it was +26$.

On a 439$ stock though that is around 6%, which while impressive is less exciting than $26 originally sounds. Especially as google has slid $300 (41%) from its peak $747 last november. More importantly, its still well below all its moving averages, even if you factor out the last 6 or so months entirely.

For you to be excited I can only speculate that you -just- bought in yesterday? Because anyone who bought the stock in most of the last 2 years and is still holding it is probably still still pretty underwhelmed right now.

That said, assuming its hit its low point, which isn't a bad bet on the technicals, it does appear to be a good buy right now; although who knows what effect the current market meltdown, and likely recession is going to have on it. I'm skeptical that any US equities are a good buy right now.

Is google likely to go up significantly in the next year? Outperform the DJIA? outperform XAU? Beats me. :)

Re:haha (1)

scubamage (727538) | more than 6 years ago | (#22722646)

haha, actually I bought in at around 450 around a year ago, and I wanted to bang my head off the wall when I saw it had slipped to 413 (especially after it being at 750 or so). I'm excited that the whole doubleclick thing is going on in general though... it really can't be a bad thing for google because their revenue stream just got much, much more massive. Buy and hold for now... google is a powerhouse company and is well managed... i'm just excited about the whole doubleclick thing. If microsoft's numbers are correct, 80% of online advertising combined with doubleclick's analytic utilities... good things are gonna be happening :)

time to anonymize, folks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22721000)

given that this means DC and google will merge their databases and hence link your DC ID/cookie/tracking history to your google ID (including gmail, g checkout, g analytics), might be a good time to clear your google cookie [imilly.com] and start anew. If it's not too late already.

Re:time to anonymize, folks (2, Interesting)

AlmostEarthling (1042844) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721896)

Day 1: I go to a pub and order a bitter. Bartender serves me, I'm happy.
Day 2: I go to the same pub and order a bitter. Bartender serves me, I'm happy.
Day 3: I go to the same pub and order a bitter. Bartender serves me, I'm happy.
Day 4: I go to the very same pub. Bartender serves me a bitter, just what I was about to order, I'm happy.

Is it that bad? As long as you're a customer, it hasn't always to be a drawback when you're somehow "tracked" and your host makes you offers that suit your taste.

F.

Re:time to anonymize, folks (1)

Humorless Coward. (862619) | more than 6 years ago | (#22722412)

...
Day 5: You go to the same pub. On the way in, you're targeted with a prostitution service which uses the same pub. The door's stuck and opens more slowly and creakier than normal. The Bartender has your drink ready, but also adds a side of chips which increase the cost (which you must pay to get the drink, as well).

Day 6 gets worse.
Are you still happy?

Cheers!

Re:time to anonymize, folks (1)

dbcad7 (771464) | more than 6 years ago | (#22722836)

Day 1: You go to a web site and look at cell phones, don't buy one yet.
Day 2: You go to a web site and look at cell phones, don't buy one yet.
Day 3: You go to a web site and look at cell phones, find one you like and purchase it.
Day 4-365: You get ads for cell phones you don't need, because you already bought one.

Re:time to anonymize, folks (1)

Builder (103701) | more than 6 years ago | (#22726766)

Day 7 - you walk into a pub halfway around the world, and the bartender has the same bitter ready. You're there interviewing for a job with a brewery that competes with the one that makes your favourite bitter.

NOW it's a problem.

Nice link (4, Informative)

_xeno_ (155264) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721024)

So the article is at ... uh, nowhere. The source reveals the link to be: <a>

Great.

Thankfully we have the Firehose submission [slashdot.org] , which contains the actual link [www.cbc.ca] .

So I guess the theory behind subscriptions is that subscribers are paying to catch mistakes like that? :P

Mod parent karma whore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22721098)

Non-karmawhoring article link: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/03/11/tech-google-doubleclick.html [www.cbc.ca]

Also, parent is redundant [slashdot.org] .

RTFA! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22721326)

O com-mon. I was enjoying the respite from RTFA Nazis.

Evil Doubleclick (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22721092)

Much of what got Doubleclick 127.0.0.1 host entries and leading positions in adblockers is now done by Google, even without the merger. Damn, we're lucky that Google isn't evil.

AdSense Terms now requires privacy policy (4, Interesting)

MichaelCrawford (610140) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721210)

I publish AdSense on one of my websites. One of the things I've always valuable about it over competing ad programs is that it doesn't cookie my visitors for tracking purposes.

But the new Terms and Conditions [google.com] , to which all publishers must agree to remain in the program, now requires:

You must have and abide by an appropriate privacy policy that clearly discloses that third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your users' browser, or using web beacons to collect information, in the course of ads being served on your website. Your privacy policy should also include information about user options for cookie management.

That just plain sucks.

(A web beacon is also known as a web page; it's a small, invisible graphic placed in the page for tracking purposes.)

However, I'm hoping that a silver lining might be that, if advertising is made more effective by tracking, us publishers might get paid more. But I'm not counting on it.

oopsy: s/web page/web bug/ (1)

MichaelCrawford (610140) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721316)

I shouldn't drink and post.

Re:AdSense Terms now requires privacy policy (2, Insightful)

scubamage (727538) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721336)

In theory it can only help you as an advertiser. By using the beacon, google's robotic voodoo machine can figure out what kinds of stuff a visitor is most likely to click on when he or she visits your site, thus increasing the liklihood of a successful click and maybe even some purchases. The only people who really lose are privacy purists who are terrified that cookies = virii (a common misconception). The fundamental flaw with that logic is of course that to google and other advertisers, you are a potential wallet. It is in their best interest to keep you safe and browsing. Sadly, google hasn't had the best history in not caving to government demands... though nothing quite so bad as the yahoo case where they got a bunch of people thrown into chinese prisons.

Re:AdSense Terms now requires privacy policy (3, Insightful)

scubamage (727538) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721400)

Forgot to mention, while tracking is a valid concern for end users who are worried about anonymity, again, this really will be a boon to anyone who uses adsense.

Re:AdSense Terms now requires privacy policy (1)

rtaylor (70602) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723098)

Besides, Google already knows everywhere you go and everything you do anyway through all of their other data acquisition methods. They collect enough to determine which referrals are real and which are fake, paying accordingly.

Re:AdSense Terms now requires privacy policy (1)

Omestes (471991) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723510)

The only people who really lose are privacy purists who are terrified that cookies = virii (a common misconception).

That is a strawman. I keep my cookies pretty clean, the only ones that stay at the end of the week are services with logins, which actually serve me in some way. I know cookies are not viruses (virii isn't a word), but they are put on my computer without my permission, and without telling me what their purpose might be. This is my computer, with my HDD in it, running my browser, via my internet connection, thus I get to decide what goes on my computer.

That and I find being tracked by nameless companies rather distasteful. Does randomwebsite.com really need to know I showed up there one, looking for something. Does this really warrant a permanent file on my computer (or at least expiring in 99 years), just in case I ever go back?

My computer will not die if I got rid of CookieSafe, my family would not be aducted by DoubleClick thugs, but I would lose some control over my own computer, and over who knows what I'm doing. People I trust can have information, if they ask for it (I've had the same google account for god knows how long), and if they provide a service I find useful. Faceless third parties, and fly by night web designers aren't trusted nor offer a service that serves me, and thus don't get free rein of my browser.

Pardon the rambling, cough medicine isn't great for lucidity. But to be short, it is more of a control issue, rather than a safety issue.

Re:AdSense Terms now requires privacy policy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22724084)

As someone who reads "terms and conditions" and "privacy policies", you have my condolences. The longer the t&c or pp pages are, the less likely you are to get my business (all other things being equal). Luckily, there are a few key things to look out for. Is there any hope for you segragating the DC/Google T&C/PP from those of your site and ecommerce? Web bugs and cookies are garbage to be sure, but why make yourself look like this [comedycentral.com] ?

These privacy/terms pages are so long, they have nearly lost all meaning. Most should just say: "We will exploit your information to the extent we believe the law permits and then some." Sites with real privacy protection can usually sum up their lack of abuse in a few paragraphs.

Good Lord. That must set some kind of record. (1)

MichaelCrawford (610140) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724640)

I expect that my privacy policy can be just a few sentences long. AdSense's T&Cs say we should advise the user on how to disable cookies - I might well provide a detailed HOWTO, with screen shots, for all the top browsers.

'

Cookie Blocking (1)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721574)

I currently block cookies from Double-Click and accept cookies from Google. I'd rather not choose another search engine and quit g-mail, but this may be the best choice. What should I do?

Re:Cookie Blocking (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721918)

Check your email with a mail client if you have to, and block the cookies.

Re:Cookie Blocking (1)

raynet (51803) | more than 6 years ago | (#22722272)

Why not block all cookies? And if that kills gmail, begin using it via IMAP-SSL or something.

Re:Cookie Blocking (1)

Carewolf (581105) | more than 6 years ago | (#22726016)

I block cookies from both double-click and from Google adsense, I can still use GMail just fine. You just have to refine the cookie block a little.

March 11, 2008 (1)

errxn (108621) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721584)

The day that 'Do No Evil' officially died for good.

Re:March 11, 2008 (1)

jo42 (227475) | more than 6 years ago | (#22725364)

"Do No Evil" died a long time ago...

Re:March 11, 2008 (1)

errxn (108621) | more than 6 years ago | (#22728232)

That's true. This is just the final nail in the coffin.

Here's to hoping... (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 6 years ago | (#22721824)

...that this means Google can fix some of the horrible code/server issues DoubleClick seems to bring with it. A toast, in hopes that soon I won't have to wait thirty seconds while my Firefox window says "Waiting for doubleclick.com" at the bottom. ::salud::

Re:Here's to hoping... (1)

knight24k (1115643) | more than 6 years ago | (#22722010)

I never have to wait for doubleclick.net in Firefox....

setting doubleclick.net to 127.0.0.1 in HOSTS works wonders...speeds things up too.

Re:Here's to hoping... (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 6 years ago | (#22722086)

I...I cannot thank you enough... ::sacrificial offering::

Re:Here's to hoping... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22723352)

Or just use noscript. In fact, noscript is blocking doubleclick.net on this very page...

Re:Here's to hoping...Even though I don't care for (1)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 6 years ago | (#22722994)

Double Click (at least before Google got them), and heaped tons of disparagement upon the entity, i know the have some quite intelligent people there. One of my friends is there. i'm not saying (rather, not asserting that) the hiring process there is as tough as it is at Google...

i hope D/C becomes one of those companies i can gladly remove from my firewall/blocker. But, it used to be that on Comcast, EVERY site i traversed to having D/C cookies took fracking forEVER to load. Now, tho the SFPL has Comcast, the pages load as fast as if (previously) D/C cookies were not blocked. Might just be a firewall matter, not a cookies matter. But, since Google owns them, it's not entirely impossible that Google has a hidden passthru layer of some sort.

i am NOT saying this with any info from others. It's just my pseudo-conspiracy-theorist-mind at work in that regard.

Government too powerful (1)

youngdev (1238812) | more than 6 years ago | (#22722068)

Does it bother anyone else that government is so deeply involved in the dealings with 2 private entities?

Re:Government too powerful (1)

PhxBlue (562201) | more than 6 years ago | (#22722150)

No. You haven't tried buying or selling a house lately, have you?

Re:Government too powerful (1)

youngdev (1238812) | more than 6 years ago | (#22722268)

I bought a house in 2005 and I didn't like the fat proctologist fingers then either. Just because government has monopoly on the use of force doesn't mean there is a blank check to police every aspect of our lives. I, for one, am sick to death of all the Womb-to-Tomb treatment our government seems to be dishing out. Whatever happened to rugged individualism and the ability to charge whatever you want for your services with the only price control being supply and demand? My dad used to tell this same joke all the time:
"Don't worry. I'm from the government. I'm here to help."

Re:Government too powerful (1)

PhxBlue (562201) | more than 6 years ago | (#22722564)

Whatever happened to rugged individualism and the ability to charge whatever you want for your services with the only price control being supply and demand?

It never existed, at least not in the United States. The more common term for what you're describing -- albeit under more extreme circumstances -- is "price gouging." Yes, government sucks ... but in a lot of cases (air traffic control comes to mind because Ronald Reagan used the same joke your dad used to tell), lack of government is even worse.

Do some research on why the Food and Drug Administration came about, and you may see what I mean.

Re:Government too powerful (2, Insightful)

WaZiX (766733) | more than 6 years ago | (#22722756)

the ability to charge whatever you want for your services with the only price control being supply and demand
There are natural flaws in the market such as asymmetric information, moral hazard, adverse selection, collusion, monopolies, etc... The ridiculous stance that is getting more and more popular these days (Ron Paul, etc... ) to adhere to the principles of the capitalism and the free market without acknowledging its fundamental flaws is astonishing to me.

The economics and more specifically the political economics are more and more being shifted from science to philosophy if not ideology; as sound as it is to recognize the fact that free markets are the optimum way to prosperity and technological progress, uncontrolled markets would rarely if ever tend towards an optimum equilibrium for the society.

Re:Government too powerful (1)

CaptainZapp (182233) | more than 6 years ago | (#22726004)

Does it bother anyone else that government is so deeply involved in the dealings with 2 private entities?

Frankly, it bothers me much more how the US government is so deeply involved in trampling on the rights of individuals.

Dead link in parent (1)

s13g3 (110658) | more than 6 years ago | (#22722124)

Is there a link to this anywhere? A quick search of google news returns only a link to this /. entry. Are there any real-world references to this? Sorry, but news doesn't originate at /., it is merely reposted here, and pardon me, but I'm not inclined to trust anything I find posted here without a reference to an actual news outlet - kdawson is particularly known for journalistic integrity.

Google's announcement to publishers (2, Informative)

davros-too (987732) | more than 6 years ago | (#22722670)


http://www.google.com/dclk/messages [google.com]

Not that it says much, but from the horse's mouth so to speak.

Disgusting Corrupt and Reprehensible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22723976)

This ban is just more evidence of the knee-jerk anti-Americanism rampant in the EU. Its protectionist member states particularly the French, Chinese and Libyans take every anti-free trade opportunity to stop our mom-and-pop apple-pie corporations from competing on a level...

Oh, wait, nevermind.

In tomorrow's news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22724354)

EU's anti-trust case against Google.

government (1)

rice_burners_suck (243660) | more than 6 years ago | (#22725488)

i think that government organizations should have to approve all decisions. for example, you're on the road, and there's a restroom coming up in 5 miles. you don't really need to use a restroom that badly at the moment, but you're not sure if it's a good idea to stop anyway, or just go another 50 miles down the road to the next restroom. you decide to stop. since this is a decision, what you need to do at this point is fill out 10,000 pages of paperwork to send to a special government agency that approves or declines requests such as this. it takes ten years for the government to get back to you on it, by which time you need a restroom really, really, really, really badly.

As long as google has the clear headedness to (1)

cmefford (810011) | more than 6 years ago | (#22728240)

understand that more than just a few of us blackhole doubleclick.net for a plethora of reasons, and keeps doubleclick stuff on doubleclick's networks, it's fine with me.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?