Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FTC Approves Google-DoubleClick Deal

Posted by kdawson on from the one-ad-server-to-rule-them-all dept.

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.

9 of 56 comments (clear)

  1. In other news by Hanners1979 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  2. Friction? by kilo_foxtrot84 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Friction? by spyrochaete · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think AdBlock, nor "The AdBlock Crew", are professionally affiliated with Mozilla. Besides, Google's main source of income is advertising and I don't think they've balked at this extension yet. Currently AdBlock blocks all Google ads very thoroughly.

    2. Re:Friction? by lb746 · · Score: 4, Funny

      The adblock extension is just not as exciting. I prefer editing my hosts file to redirect all requests for ad servers to my localhost where I have a lovely collection of 180x60 pictures of myself. Nothing makes a webpage more readable than ad's of yourself.

  3. Good news by rinkjustice · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  4. Re:more&more corepirate nazi incest by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Funny

    What in the hell are you talking about? This post is damn near unreadable, and even if it was readable, its incomprehensable.

    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. :-P

    Cheers
    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  5. Lacked legal authority... by nebaz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  6. Re:Relativism by Billosaur · · Score: 3, Funny

    Except that the dictum "Do No Evil" will sweep down on DoubleClick, and lo, there will be a conversion, and DoubleClick will be truned from its evil ways... and peace will reign over the Net.

    --
    GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
  7. Blew off? by IronChef · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.