Slashdot Mirror
FTC Approves Google-DoubleClick Deal
Bogie Lowenstein is one of many readers letting us know that the FTC has approved Google's acquisition of DoubleClick in a 4-to-1 vote. The FTC essentially blew off the privacy concerns about the merger, saying it lacked the legal authority to block the deal on any grounds except antitrust. The EU's review of the deal is still going forward, with a decision due by April 2, 2008; the privacy sensibility there is more sharply focused.
Rumours that the vote was carried out online, on a page which hosted a brightly coloured, flashing DoubleClick advertisment which proclaimed 'Approve the merger and win a PlayStation 3!!!' are still yet to be confirmed.
What in the hell are you talking about? This post is damn near unreadable, and even if it was readable, its incomprehensable.
Do you suppose this will cause contention between Google and Mozilla? I thought they had a mutually beneficial arrangement going... but what happens when Google owns DoubleClick, when one of Firefox's most popular add-ons--AdBlock--works to help us ignore DoubleClick ads? Will we see any sort of friction?
I'm glad this went through. Maybe DoubleClick's practices and privacy policies will be more transparent now their part of Google. And from a marketing standpoint, I can see the contextual relevancy of advertising online become a whole lot more relevant to the user.
But mostly because it pisses off Microsoft.
SEO Copywriter. Just Say ON
Perhaps this is one of those cases where the concerns are moot, given the opportunity for privacy abuse already present. The acquisition of DoubleClick will probably not serve to dramatically increase the potential and scope of privacy violations that are already possible for Google.
So, even if we discount FTCs decision on the grounds they presented, there may be little reason to worry over the final outcome.
I doubt it will be a serious problem in the near future. Long term though we can hope!
...that most banner ads will have a giant 'BETA' slapped across them? And frankly, banner are just a problem for folks you don't use the Firefox/Ad-Blocker/No-Script combo.... body blow! body blow! Put him away!!!!
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
His tinfoil hat is too tight.
He's been taking bong hits from the timecube again.
And, I think he said God told him to put a chicken in his underpants, but I'm not entirely sure of that one.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Is there a person on the internet who has not blackholed doubleclick? Of what possible significance are they any more?
I'm not sure about the privacy implications, but I'm glad that a federal agency finally recognizes its own jurisdictional limits, unlike some other agency I can think of who is supposed to be regulating radio broadcast spectrum allocation, not content on said spectrum. Still though, I hope it's not an excuse to pander to big business, like some of what the EPA does when they say that the lack legal authority, even when judges rule that they do not lack such.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
I have doubleclick blocked in my hosts file. It makes slashdot load faster, incidentally.
Though all the "sponsored links" in google search results are broken. I have to hack the url to remove the reference to doubleclick in order to get to the site.
That is ok with me though...I don't often have much reason to click a sponsored link.
In one hand google "microsofted" another competitor In the other hand google will be able to do behaviour tracking much more openy while concentrating the resulting lawsuits under the "doubleclick" condom, just like they bought youtube as a lawsuit condom over the video department, the end result is everything will be dirty while the name "google" remains clean
IIRC, Bogie Lowenstein was the guy in "10 Things I Hate About You" that threw parties, perhaps involuntarily.
Living in Europe, I do not see that this is the end of the story.
... The Commission is seeking to make its (merger) clearances, as well as its prohibitions, as appeal-proof as possible," (emphasis mine)
Quote: "The European Commission, as it proceeds in evaluating the Google-DoubleClick deal, may have concerns with whether challenging the merger will ultimately be overturned by the European Court of First Instance, which serves as an appeals court.
They will probably have a hard time doing so.
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
Has this administration's FTC ever seen a merger it didn't like? I'm pretty sure they'd approve a merger of Standard Oil, Microsoft, AT&T, and Google into one enormous uber-monopoly that controlled everything on the planet.
I have no idea what you're talking about - rambling with strange punctuation, but "pirate nazi incest" sounds scintillating!
Arrr, untermensch! Off with your knickers!
"The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
This merger will hurt google. Googles positive reputation can only be dragged down by affiliating itself with double-click.
I love google, but ill block them at my router before i let doubleclick into by boxes.
Except that the dictum "Do No Evil" will sweep down on DoubleClick
I am aware of no such dictum.
Are you confusing it with Google's famous "Don't Be Evil" informal corporate motto?
I should also point out that one can do evil things now and then without actually "being" evil..so the difference is not purely semantic.
Evil educators deny foursquare bong hits. You are brainwashed stupid by non harmonious word god. Perhaps, you should stop worshipping Satanic impersonator and match my cubic wisdom. Corporate Nazi incest only occurs with opposites, not foursquare harmonic time cube of perpetual man.
If you haven't made a developer cry, you've wasted a day.
for each of the creators' innocents harmed in any way, there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/us, as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile, will not be available after the big flash occurs
You know - and I'm just going with my gut on this one - it's possible, however remotely, that you are a complete loon. It is, though, a really terrific mashup of paranoia, off-kilter religious wackoism, and damaged linguistic goods. As performance art, this is fine. As a bit of cognition on your part, it's really... sad, I'm afraid. Oh well.
we're intending for the nazis to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather'.
But, it's worth it! I mean, that's gold, right there.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
backs away slowly, avoiding eye contact
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
... You can protect your privacy against Double-Click. Most privacy enforcement solutions rely on proxy and anonymity and remain useful for Google-Click. Only few dedicated solutions (like Scroogle) are concerned by this merge.
But is it really that bad? If you think about it with android Google will soon know more about you I guess. Is Double-Click really a threat when users choose to let Google logging their Web History? The only point is that now Google won't say "If you don't like that, you can use another search engine" cause you can not choose what ads are displayed.
Anyway, I'm still developing a privacy enforcement extension for Firefox (http://squigglesr.free.fr). Basically it sends queries to search engine and click on some (non-adwords) results. I guess now I'll have to simulate get double-click ads...
The FTC essentially blew off the privacy concerns about the merger, saying it lacked the legal authority to block the deal on any grounds except antitrust.
So... working within what you perceive as the legal limitations of your office is just "blowing off" the problem. You're right--we need more people in government seizing power for our own good.
Speaking as someone who has to use DFP (Doubleclick For Publishers) to put up new adverts and such - I can tell you the current system is a total pile of utter garbage (think full on ActiveX) and I cant wait for Google to hopefully get in and clean up the interface/system.
You make a valid point and I'm sorry to see you modded as Flamebait. In fact the trend against trustbusting goes back to WWII -- to the grave detriment of the Pharma and Media markets.
$META_SIG_JOKE
[Citation needed]
My answer: Privoxy.
Stachel
I'm so tired of privacy nuts. There is no such thing as privacy or anonymity...especially on the internet. If you don't want Google to know anything about you, don't use their service. No one is forcing you to. Likewise, don't do business with anyone using Double-click's service.
In fact, if you want real privacy, go live in the woods a cut yourself off from humanity. Of course, the animals will know where you eat, sleep, and shit. Sorry.
AdWords is currently the ONLY profitable revenue source Google has and it is increasingly under assault. First there was the whole click fraud debacle and now it appears as though Google is being sued for patent infringement: http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-vaedce/case_no-2:2007cv00582/case_id-224878/ Yes, there have been many patent infringement cases filed against Google, but unlike most of the other cases, this patent specifically covers the automated bid adjustment mechanism used by AdWords and numerous other PPC search engines. Imagine if you woke up tomorrow and you had to start manually adjusting your AdWords bids. Every time a competitor raised or lowered his bid price, you would have to respond manually, rather than letting AdWords adjust your bid according to the rules you defined. For the vast majority of advertisers, AdWords would become unusable. This scenario is surely the kind of nightmare that keeps Sergey and Larry awake at night and scrambling during the day to implement a Plan-B in case AdWords goes poof.